ML14010A294

Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 62, Chapter 2 - Site Characteristics

ML14010A294
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/30/2013
From:	Energy Northwest
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14010A476	List: GO2-13-174, Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 62, Appendix J - Shielding Evaluation Report ML14010A290 ML14010A291 ML14010A292 ML14010A293 ML14010A294 ML14010A295 ML14010A296 ML14010A297 ML14010A298 ML14010A299 ML14010A300 ML14010A301 ML14010A302 ML14010A303 ML14010A304 ML14010A305 ML14010A306 ML14010A307 ML14010A308 ML14010A309 ML14010A310 ML14010A311 ML14010A312 ML14010A313 ML14010A314 ML14010A315 ML14010A316 ML14010A317
References
GO2-13-174
Download: ML14010A294 (266)

Text

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page LDCN-09-044 2-i 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY ................................................ 2.1-1 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................... 2.

1-1 2.1.1.1 Specificati on of Location ............................................................. 2.

1-1 2.1.1.2 Site Area Map

.......................................................................... 2.1-1 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits ........................... 2.1-2 2.1.2 EXCLUSION AREA AUTHORITY AND CONTROL .......................... 2.1-2 2.1.2.1 Aut hority ................................................................................

2.1-2 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Op eration .............................. 2.1-4 2.1.2.2.1 Industrial Development Complex ................................................ 2.1-4 2.1.2.2.2 618-11 (Wye) Waste Burial Gr ound .............................................

2.1-4 2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Cont rol ..................................................

2.1-5 2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocation of Roads ............................................. 2.1-5

2.1.3 POPULATION

DISTRIBUTION ..................................................... 2.

1-5 2.1.3.1 Population W ithin Ten M iles ........................................................

2.1-6 2.1.3.2 Population Betw een Ten and Fifty Miles

.......................................... 2.1-7 2.1.3.3 Transient Populati on ..................................................................

2.1-7 2.1.3.4 Low Population Zone ................................................................. 2.1-7 2.1.3.5 Populati on Center

..................................................................... 2.1-7 2.1.3.6 Populati on Density

.................................................................... 2.1-7 2.

1.4 REFERENCES

........................................................................... 2.1-8

2.2 NEARBY

INDUSTRIAL, TR ANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES ................................................................................ 2.2-1

2.2.1 LOCATION

AND ROUTES .......................................................... 2.2-1 2.

2.2 DESCRIPTION

S

......................................................................... 2.2-3 2.2.2.1 Description of Facilities .............................................................. 2.2-3 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials

............................................. 2.2-6 2.2.2.3 Pipe lines ................................................................................

2.2-7 2.2.2.4 Wate rways ..............................................................................

2.2-7 2.2.2.5 Airports ................................................................................. 2.2-8 2.2.2.6 Projection of Industrial Growth ..................................................... 2.2-8

2.2.3 EVALUATION

OF PO TENTIAL ACCIDENTS ................................. 2.2-8 2.2.3.1 Determination of Design Basis Events

............................................. 2.2-8 2.2.3.2 Effects of Design Basis Events

...................................................... 2.2-11 2.

2.4 REFERENCES

........................................................................... 2.2-11

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page 2-ii 2.3 METEOROLOGY ......................................................................... 2.3-1

2.3.1 REGIONAL

CL IMATOLOGY

.......................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1.1 Genera l Climate

....................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1.2 Regional Mete orological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases

....... 2.3-4 2.3.1.2.1 Severe Weat her Phenomena ....................................................... 2.

3-4 2.3.1.2.1.1 Heavy Ra in, Snow, and Ice .....................................................

2.3-4 2.3.1.2.1.2 Thunderstorms and Hail

......................................................... 2.3-4 2.3.1.2.1.3 To rnadoes .......................................................................... 2.3-6 2.3.1.2.1.4 Strong Winds

...................................................................... 2.3-7 2.3.1.2.1.5 High Air Pollution Potential (APP) and Dust Storm Potential ........... 2.3-8 2.3.1.2.1.5.1 Evaluation of August 11, 1955 and January 11, 1972 Dust Storms at Hanford ............................................................. 2.3-11 2.3.1.2.1.5.2 Hanf ord Dust Storm Climatology for Design and Operating Bases ... 2.3-13 2.3.1.2.2 Design Snow Load ..................................................................

2.3-14 2.3.1.2.3 Meteorological Data Used for Evaluation of Ultimate Heat Sink .......... 2.3-15

2.3.2 LOCAL

METEOROLOGY .............................................................. 2.3-16 2.3.2.1 Data Comparisons

..................................................................... 2.3-16 2.3.2.1.1 Winds

.................................................................................. 2.3-18 2.3.2.1.2 Moisture and Temperature ........................................................ 2.3-19 2.3.2.1.3 Monthly Precipitation

.............................................................. 2.3-20 2.3.2.1.4 Fog .................................................................................... 2.3-20 2.3.2.1.5 Stability Summaries

................................................................. 2.3-21 2.3.2.2 Potential Influence of the Plant and Its Facilities on Local Meteorology .... 2.3-22 2.3.2.3 Local Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases

........... 2.3-23 2.3.2.4 Topographic Description

............................................................. 2.3-23

2.3.3 ONSITE

METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT PROGRAM ................... 2.3-23 2.3.3.1 Permanent Onsite Meteorological Tower and Instrumentation Characteristics ......................................................................... 2.

3-24 2.3.3.2 Quality Assurance Program ......................................................... 2.3-26 2.3.3.2.1 Data Recovery During Apr il 1, 1974 - March 31, 1976 ..................... 2.3-26 2.3.3.2.2 Maintenance and Calibration

..................................................... 2.3-28 2.3.3.2.3 Data Proce ssing and Analysis .................................................... 2.3-28 2.3.3.2.4 Meteorological Monitoring Program During Plant Operation .............. 2.3-29 2.3.3.3 Other Meteorological Measurement Programs Considered for the Data Comparisons ............................................................................ 2.3-31 2.3.3.3.1 CGS Tem porary Tower

............................................................ 2.3-31 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page 2-iii 2.3.3.3.2 Hanford Mete orological Sta tion ..................................................

2.3-31 2.3.3.4 Joint Stability - Wind Frequency Summaries ..................................... 2.3-31

2.3.4 SHORT

TERM DIFFUSI ON ESTIMATES ........................................ 2.3-32 2.3.4.1 Objective ................................................................................

2.3-32 2.3.4.2 Exclusion Area Boundary

............................................................ 2.3-32 2.3.4.3 Low Population Zone

................................................................. 2.3-33 2.3.4.4 Control Room .......................................................................... 2.3-33 2.3.4.5 Description of Sources

............................................................... 2.3-33 2.3.4.6 Control Ro om Intakes

................................................................ 2.3-34 2.3.4.7 Calculations ............................................................................ 2.3-34 2.3.5 LONG-TERM (ROUTINE)

DIFFUSION ESTIMATES ............................. 2.3-35 2.3.5.1 Objectives ............................................................................... 2.3-35 2.3.5.2 Calcul ations ............................................................................

2.3-36 2.

3.6 REFERENCES

........................................................................... 2.3-38

2.4 HYDROLOGY

EN GINEERING

........................................................ 2.4-1

2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC

DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 2.4-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities ...................................................................... 2.4-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere ............................................................................ 2.4-1

2.4.2 FLOODS

.................................................................................. 2.4-4 2.4.2.1 Flood History .......................................................................... 2.4-4 2.4.2.2 Flood Design C onsiderations ........................................................ 2.4-4 2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation ..............................................

2.4-5 2.4.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD ON STREAMS AND RIVERS ........... 2.4-6 2.4.3.1 Probable Maxi mum Precipitation ................................................... 2.4-7 2.4.3.2 Precipita tion Losses

................................................................... 2.4-7 2.4.3.3 Runoff and Stream Course Models ................................................. 2.4-7 2.4.3.4 Probable Maxi mum Flood Fl ow ....................................................

2.4-8 2.4.3.5 Water Le vel Determinations

......................................................... 2.4-9 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wi nd Wave Activity .................................................... 2.4-9

2.4.4 POTENTIAL

DAM FAILURES, SEISMICALLY INDUCED ................. 2.4-9 2.4.4.1 Dam Failure Permutations ........................................................... 2.4-10 2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potentia l Dam Failures ............................. 2.4-11 2.4.4.3 Water Le vel at Plant Site

............................................................. 2.4-11 2.4.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING ............... 2.4-11 2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING .............................. 2.4-12

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page 2-iv 2.4.7 ICE E FFECTS ...........................................................................

2.4-12 2.4.8 COOLING WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS ............................. 2.4-13

2.4.9 CHANNEL

DI VERSIONS ............................................................ 2.4-13 2.4.10 FLOODING PROTECTI ON REQUIREMENTS ................................ 2.4-13 2.4.11 LOW WATER CONS IDERATIONS

.................................................. 2.4-14 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Streams

................................................................ 2.4-14 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Sur ges, Seiches, or Tsunami ..................... 2.4-15 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water

............................................................... 2.4-15 2.4.11.4 Future Controls

....................................................................... 2.4-16 2.4.11.5 Plant Re quirements

.................................................................. 2.4-17 2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependa bility Requireme nts ..........................................

2.4-17 2.4.12 DISPERSION, DILUTION, AND TRAVEL TIMES OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS IN SURFACE WATERS ........... 2.4-17 2.4.13 GROUNDWATER ..................................................................... 2.4-18 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use ........................................................

2.4-18 2.4.13.2 S ources ................................................................................

2.4-23 2.4.13.3 Accident al Effects

.................................................................... 2.4-25 2.4.13.4 Monitoring or Sa feguard Require ments ..........................................

2.4-29 2.4.13.5 Design Bases for Subsur face Hydrostatic Lo adings ........................... 2.4-29 2.4.14 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIO NS AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 2.4-30 2.4.15 REFERENCES ......................................................................... 2.4-30 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ...... 2.5-1

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page 2-v 2.1-1 Projected Population Distribution by Compass Sector and Distance from the Site.....................................................................2.1-9 2.1-2 2000 Populati on Distribution by Compass Sector and Distance from the Site..........................................................2.1-12

2.2-1 Hanford Site Nuclear Facilities...............................................2.2-13

2.3-1 Average and Extremes of Climatic Elements at Hanford................2.3-43

2.3-2 Average Return Period a nd Existing Record for Various Precipitation Amounts and Intensity During Specified Time Periods at Hanford..............................................................

2.3-45 2.3-3 Miscellaneous Snowfall Statistics (1946 through 1970)..................2.3-46

2.3-4 Tornado History Within 100 Miles of CGS................................2.3-47

2.3-5 Monthly and Annual Prevailing Directions, Average Speeds, and Peak Gusts: 1945-1970 at HMS........................................2.3-48

2.3-6 Speed and Direction of Daily Peak Gusts..................................

2.3-49 2.3-7a CGS and HMS Hourly Mete orlogical Data, August 7-9, 1972 (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)..................................................2.3-51

2.3-7b CGS Hourly Meteorolog ical Data, July 4-12, 1975 (Ultimate Heat Si nk Studies)..................................................2.3-52

2.3-7c CGS Hourly Meteorolog ical Data, July 4-12, 1975 (Ultimate Heat Si nk Studies)..................................................2.3-53

2.3-7d CGS Hourly Meteorolog ical Data, July 4-12, 1975 (Ultimate Heat Si nk Studies)..................................................2.3-54

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title Page 2-vi 2.3-7e CGS Hourly Meteorolog ical Data, July 4-12, 1975 (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)..................................................2.3-55 2.3-7f 24 Hour HMS Mete orological Profile for August 4, 1961..............2.3-56

2.3-7g Diurnal Varia tion in Dry Bulb and Wet Bulb Temperature for Use in Analyzing Second Through Thirtieth Day Pond Thermal Performance..........................................................

2.3-57 2.3-7h Diurnal Varia tion in Dry Bulb and Wet Bulb Temperature for Use in Analyzing First Th rough Thirtieth Day Maximum Mass Loss........................................................................2.

3-58 2.3-8a Summary of CGS Onsite Meteorological Data Collected During the First and Second Annual Cycles as Compared to Corresponding Hanford Meterological Sta tion Data......................2.3-59

2.3-8b Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction Versus Speed for CGS 33-ft Level (1974-1975).................................................2.3-61

2.3-9 Percentage Fre quency Distribution of 50-ft Wind Direction Versus Speed at HM S (1955-1970)..........................................2.3-66

2.3-10 Percent Frequency of Occu rrence of Wind Direction at the Hanford Reserv ation............................................................

2.3-70 2.3-11 Persistence of Wind Direction in One Se ctor (22.5 Degrees) from 4/74 through 3/75 at 33-ft Level......................................2.3-72

2.3-12 Persistence of Wind Direction in Two Sectors (45 Degrees) from 4/74 through 3/75 at CGS for 33-ft Level...........................2.3-74

2.3-12a Longest Persiste nce of Wind Direction in One (22.5 Degrees) and Two (45 Degrees) Sector s During First and Second Annual Cycles at 33-ft Level.................................................2.3-76

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title Page 2-vii 2.3-13 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Speed at the Hanford Reserv ation............................................................

2.3-77 2.3-14 Diurnal Variation of 33-ft El evation Dry Bulb Temperature (F°)

at CGS and Monthly Average Dry Bulb Temperature (F°) at the Hanford Reservation.......................................................2.3-79

2.3-15 Diurnal Variation of 33-ft Elevation Wet Bulb Temperature (F°)

at CGS and Monthly Average Wet Bulb Temperature (F°) at the Hanford Reserv ation............................................................

2.3-80 2.3-16 Diurnal Variation of 33 ft Elevation Dew Point Temperature (F°)

at CGS and Monthly Average Dew Point Temperature (F°) at the Hanford Reservation.......................................................2.3-81

2.3-17 Frequency of Occurrence, Dry Bulb Temperature (F°) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 for 33-ft Level....................2.3-82

2.3-18 Frequency of Occurrence, Wet Bulb Temperature (F°) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 for 33-ft Level....................2.3-83

2.3-19 Frequency of Occurrence, Dew Point Temperature (F°) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 for 33-ft Level....................2.3-84

2.3-20 Monthly Averages of Psyc hrometric Data Based on Period of Record (1950-1970).........................................................

2.3-85 2.3-21 Diurnal Variation of Pr ecipitation Intensity at CGS and Monthly Total Precipitation at th e Hanford Reservation.................2.3-86

2.3-22 Frequency of Occurrence, Pr ecipitation Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/

75 at CGS..............................................2.3-87

2.3-22a Annual Frequency of Occu rrence of Wind Direction and Wind Speed Versus Precip itation Intensity.................................2.3-88

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title Page LDCN-07-044 2-viii 2.3-23 Statistics on Fog at the Hanford Meteorology Station .................... 2.3-90 2.3-24 Percent Freque ncy Distribution of Wi nd Speeds During Hourly Observations of Fog at Pasco and at HMS ................................. 2.3-91 2.3-25 Percent Frequency of O ccurrence of Stability at the Hanford Reserva tion............................................................ 2.3-92 2.3-26 Frequency of Occurrence T ( F/200 ft) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 at CGS between 245 and 33-ft Levels ......... 2.3-94

2.3-27 Frequency of Occurrence, Sigma () Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 at CGS fo r 33-ft Level .................................. 2.3-95 2.3-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction ............. 2.3-96

2.3-28A Joint Frequency Di stribution of Wind Speed and Direction ............. 2.3-100

2.3-29 through 2.3-32 DELETED 2.3-33 Exclusion Ar ea Boundary Accident /Q Desert Sigmas ................. 2.3-101 2.3-33a Exclusion Area Boundary /Q Values Desert Sigmas w/ Meander .... 2.3-102

2.3-34 Exclusion Ar ea Boundary Accident /Q P-G Sigmas .................... 2.3-103 2.3-34a Exclusion Area Boundary /Q Values Pasquill-Gifford Sigmar w/ Meander and Building Wake Credit

..................................... 2.3-104 2.3-35 Low Population Zone Accident /Q Desert Sigmas ...................... 2.3-105

2.3-36 Low Population Zone Accident /Q P-G Sigmas ......................... 2.3-106 2.3-37 Control Room, Excl usion Area Boundary and Low Population Zone /Qs (S/m 3) .......................................... 2.3-107 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title Page 2-ix 2.3-38a CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas ...................... 2.3-108

2.3-38b CGS Calculation, Terrain F eatures, Desert Sigmas ...................... 2.3-109

2.3-38c CGS Calculations, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas ..................... 2.3-110

2.3-38d CGS Calculation, Terrain F eatures, Desert Sigmas ...................... 2.3-111

2.3-38e CGS Calculations, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas ..................... 2.3-112

2.3-38f CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas ...................... 2.3-113

2.3-39a DELETED ....................................................................... 2.3-118 through 2.3-39f

2.3-40 Frequency of Wind Resuspension Pe riods at Hanford (1953-1970)

...................................................................... 2.3-119

2.3-41 Dust Concentration Depende ncy on Wind Speed and Direction at Hanford 1953-1970 .......................................................... 2.3-120

2.3-42 Hours Satisfying Dust Storm Cr iteria at Hanford (1953-1970) ......... 2.3-121

2.4-1 Major Columbia River Basin Dams ......................................... 2.4-35

2.4-2 Columbia River Temperatures Near Columbia Generating Station .... 2.4-36

2.4-3 Downstream Surface Water Users

........................................... 2.4-37

2.4-4 Mean Discharges in CFS of Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam, Modified to 1970 Conditions ................................ 2.4-38

2.4-5 Dependable Yield, Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam, Washington

....................................................................... 2.4-39 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title Page LDCN-05-050 2-x 2.4-6 Major Geologic Units in the Hanford Region and Their Water-Bearing Pr operties......................................................2.4-40

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title 2-xi 2.1-1 General Area, 0-20 Miles 2.1-2 General Area, 0-50 Miles

2.1-3 Overall Site Plan

2.1-4 Project Area Map - 10 Mile Radius

2.1-5 Project Area Map - 50 Mile Radius

2.1-6 2000 Population in Communities Around Site

2.1-7 Transportation and Topographic Features of Low Population Zone

2.2-1 Hanford Reservation Road System

2.2-2 Hanford Reserva tion Railroad System

2.2-3 Federal Airways and Inst rument Approaches/Departures

2.3-1 Rainfall Intensity, Duration, a nd Frequency Based on the Period 1947-69 at Hanford

2.3-2 Greatest Depth of Snow on Ground During 24 of 25 Winters of Record at Hanford 1946-47 through 1969-70

2.3-3 Distribution of Characterized To rnadoes in 20-Year Period (1950-69) 2.3-4 Peak Wind Gust Return Probability Diagram

2.3-5 Dust Occurrences Per Wind Speeds to 400 ft Heights

2.3-6 Near-Surface Airborne Dust Concentration as a Function of Average Air Velocity C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Number Title 2-xii 2.3-7 Monthly Hourly Average of Temperature and Rela tive Humidity (Sheets 1 through 3) 2.3-8 Probability (%) that the First Hourly Observation of an Inversion will Mark the Beginning of an Inversion Run of N Hr (Sheets 1 through 4)

2.3-9 Topographic Cross Sections of Region Surrounding Site

2.3-10 Yearly Hourly Average of Temperature and Relative Humidity 2.3-11 Cumulative (%) Frequency of Hourly Centerline /Q at Site Boundary Circular Distance of 1.212 Miles From Source (April 1974-March 1975)

2.3-12 Cumulative (%) Frequency of Hourly Centerline /Q at Site Boundary Circular Distance of 1.212 Miles From Source (April 1975-March 1976)

2.3-13 Cumulative (%) Fre quency of Occurrence of /Q For Postulated Accidents of 8, 16, 72, and 624 Hr At Ou ter Boundary of LPZ (3

.0 Miles from Source) (April 1974-March 1975)

2.3-14 Cumulative (%) Fre quency of Occurrence of /Q for Postulated Accidents of 8, 16, 72, and 624 Hr at Outer Boundary of LPZ (3.0 Miles from Source) (April 1975-March 1976)

2.3-15 Annual Average /Q by Sector at the Site Boundary for First and Second Annual Cycle Data 2.4-1 Hydrographic Map

2.4-2 Topographic Map of Site and Surrounding Area

2.4-3 Detailed Contours Near the Site

2.4-4 Discharge and Temperature of th e Columbia River at Priest Rapids

2.4-5 Columbia River Water Surface Profiles River Miles 323 to 358 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Number Title LDCN-03-058 2-xiii 2.4-6 Safety-Related Building Roof Plan s and Sections (Sheets 1 through 5) 2.4-7 PMF Hydrograph due to Thunderstorm PMP

2.4-8 Probable Maximum Preci pitation Drainage Basin

2.4-9 Probable Maximum Precipitation Channel Cross Sections

2.4-10 Water Surface Profile

2.4-11 Effective Fetch Diagram

2.4-12 Computed Long-Term Temperature Trends on the Columbia River at Rock Island Dam (1938-1962)

2.4-13 River Elevation at Low Flows - River Mile 352

2.4-14 Duration Curves Columbia River, Priest Rapids Dam

2.4-15 Frequency Curves of High and Low Flows for the Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam

2.4-16 Location of In take and Discharge

2.4-17 Monitoring Well Lo cations (September 1975)

2.4-18 Hanford Rese rvation Water Table Map (December 1975) 2.4-19 Groundwater Contour s Assuming Construction of the Ben Franklin Dam 2.4-20 Hanford Rese rvation Water Table Map (January 1944)

2.4-21 Hydraulic Conductivities in the Unconfined Aquifer

2.4-22 Nitrate (NO

3) Concentrations (December 1976)

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Number Title LDCN-05-050 2-xiv 2.4-23 Gross Beta Concentrations (December 1976) 2.4-24 Tritium (3H) Concentrations (December 1976) 2.4-25 Pasco Basin Uppermost Confined Aquifer Potential Map (1970)

2.4-26 Hanford Reserv ation Water Table Map (September 1973)

2.4-27 Well Hydrographs (Sheets 1 and 2)

2.4-28 Site Topographic Map

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDCN-03-023 2.1-1 Chapter 2

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 GEOGRAPHY

AND DEMOGRAPHY

2.1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1.1.1 Specification of Location

Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is located in the southeast area of the U.S.

Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site in Benton County , Washington. The site is approximately 3 miles west of the Columbia River at River Mile 352, approximately 10 miles north of north Richland, 18 miles northwest of Pasco, and 21 miles northwest of Kennewick (Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2).

The reactor is located at 46° 28' 18" north latitude and 119° 19' 58" west longitude. The approximate Universal Transver se Mercator coordinates ar e 5,148,840 meters north and 320,930 meters east.

2.1.1.2 Site Area Map

The CGS site area is that real estate over which Ener gy Northwest has the legal right to control access. It is the ar ea enclosed by the exclusion area boundary plus the plant property lines as shown in Figure 3-1 of the Offsite Dose Calc ulation Manual (ODCM). The property line and nearby industrial facilities are shown in Figure 2.1-3. Industrial facilities located in the site area are the H. J. Ashe Subs tation and Energy Northwest's Nuclear Projects 1 and 4 (WNP-4 was terminated in January 1982, and WNP-1 was terminated in May 1994). Highway and railway facilities located within the site area are shown in Figure 2.1-3. The relative locations of the plant structures are shown in Figure 1.2-1.

The boundary of the exclusion area is a circle with its center at the reactor and a radius of 1950 m. Ownership and control of the land outside the CGS property line but within the site exclusion area are discussed in Section 2.1.2. The site is situated near the middle of the relatively flat, essentially featureless plain, which is best described as a shrub ste ppe with sagebrush interspersed with perennial native and introduced annual grasses extending in a northerly, westerly, and southerly direction for several miles. The plain is ch aracterized by slight topographic relief of approxi mately 20 ft across the plant site.

The dominant topographic features in the area are the Rattlesnake Hills, 13 to 15 miles west southwest, 3200 ft above the elevation of the plant site; Gable Mountain, approximately

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-11-027 2.1-2 10 miles northwest of the site a nd about 670 ft above the site grade; and the steep river cut bluffs forming the east bank of th e Columbia River, approximately 3.5 miles east of the site (Figure 2.1-1

). 2.1.1.3 Boundaries fo r Establishing Effluent Release Limits The boundary for establishing efflue nt release limits (unrestricted area boundary as defined in 10 CFR Part 20) is the site area boundary as shown in the ODCM, Figure 3-1. The site area is the area enclosed by the exclusion area boundary and the plant property lines that fall outside the exclusion area. All area with in the site area boundary is considered a controlled area as defined by 10 CFR 20.1003.

A number of restricted areas (as defined in 10 CFR 20.1003) are associated with CGS. The primary CGS restricted area is located within the plant security fence which also is the boundary of the protected area (a s defined in 10 CFR 73.2). This is shown as the double fence line in Figure 1.2-1. Unescorted access to the protected area is controlled by CGS security staff. Other restricted areas include the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, stormwater pond, Plant Suppor t Facility calibration laboratory, Warehouse No. 5, the cooling tower sediment disposal area, and Building 167 on the WNP-4 site. Access to these secondary restricted areas is controlle d by locks and fences. Temporary restricted areas may be established and removed as dictated by activities at CGS.

2.1.2 EXCLUSION

AREA AUTHORITY AND CONTROL 2.1.2.1 Authority Energy Northwest leased 1089 acres from the DOE, within the DO E Hanford Site, to be used for CGS. A letter from the DOE Richland Oper ations office to the Managing Director of Energy Northwest (Reference 2.1-1) advises that the DOE has the authority to sell or lease land on the Hanford Site and the letter further states This Authority is contained in Section 120 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, and Section 161g of the At omic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. There is also general federal disposal authority available under the Federal Property Administrative Se rvices Act of 1949, as amended.

The 1950-m radius exclusion area extends beyo nd the CGS property lines and overlaps DOE lands as well as the additional land leased by Energy Northwest for the construction of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 projects (see Figure 2.1-3 and ODCM Figure 3-1). All land outside the Energy Northwest leased propert y but within the exclusion area is managed by the DOE.

In recognition of the requirement specified in 10 CFR 100.3(a) [Now 100.3] that a licensee have control over access to the exclusion area, the following terms have been incorporated as Article 7 of the site property lease agreement between Energy Northwest and the DOE (as modified in 1975):

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-11-027 2.1-3 Nothwithstanding any provisions of this lease to th e contrary, the Administration [Energy Research and Development Administration -- now DOE] agrees that the Supply System [now Energy Northwest]

has the authority to determine all activitie s within the exclusion area within the meaning of 10 CFR Section 100.3(a) [Now 100.3], including the authority to remove a personnel and property from the area. The Supply System agrees that it will exercise such authority in a manner so as not to preclude the Administration from undertaking any action or activity within the exclusion area that is permissible under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 100.3(a) [Now 100.3]. As used herein, the term "exclusion area" includes both the leas ed and nonleased portions of the exclusion area.

Therefore, any actions such as public access and actions concerning mineral rights and easements taken within the exclusion area but out side the leased property are under the control of the DOE with the provision that Energy Northwest has the legal right to control access of individuals to the exclusion area if necessary.

All rail shipments on the track which traverses the property (Figure 2.1-3) are also under control of the DOE and are also subject to the above provision and controls imposed by Energy Northwest Security.

The only paved roads that traverse the exclusion area of CGS are the CGS, WNP-1, and WNP-4 facility access roads shown in Figure 2.1-3. Access by land from outside of the Hanford Site to the plant site is over DOE roads. Travel within the exclusion area on the access roads will be under the authority of Energy Northwest.

In the event that evacuation or other control of the exclusi on area should become necessary, appropriate notice will be given to the DOE-Richland Operations Office for control of non-Energy Northwest orig inated activities.

The above provisions provide the necessary assu rance that the exclus ion area is properly controlled. If Energy Northwest should decide th at an easement would be useful in ensuring continued control, there is a provision in Article 5(b) of th e lease as follows:

Subject to the provisions of Section 161 g of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission has authority to grant easements for rights-of-way for roads, transmission lines and for any other purpose, and agrees to negotiate with Energy Northwest for such rights-of-way over the Hanford Operations Area as are necessary to service the Leased Premises.

Pursuant to this provision Energy Northwest could obtain an easement over the exclusion area in question from the DOE, which would ensure th at no permanent structures or other activities inconsistent with the exclusion area would be carried on therein.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 LDCN-09-044 2.1-4 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation

In accordance with, and as defined by 10 CFR 100.3, Energy Northwest has the authority to determine all activities within the exclusion area, including the authority to remove all personnel and property from the area. The following activities unrelated to plant operation are permitted within the exclusion area:

2.1.2.2.1 Industrial Development Complex Energy-Northwest is conducting site restoration and economic deve lopment (such as leasing of excess facilities for office spac e and manufacturing) activities at the WNP-1 and WNP-4 sites (the WNP-1 and WNP-4 sites are also leased from the DOE and controlled by Energy Northwest). The number of personnel at the WNP-1 and WNP-4 sites varies. However, coordination of activities within the exclusion area is under th e control of Energy Northwest and the CGS emergency plan. This includes notif ication and evacuation considerations in the event of an emergency at CGS.

2.1.2.2.2 618-11 (Wye) Waste Burial Ground The 618-11 site is a DOE waste burial ground, encompassing an eight-acre parcel directly adjacent to Energy Northwest leased land (see Figure 2.1-3) and located who lly within the CGS exclusion area. The DOE and its site contractor are approved to perform non-intrusive surveillance and characterization activities to obtain data a nd information necessary for planning future intrusive activities and remediation strategies. Th ese activities ar e necessary to meet the 618-11 site remediation and closeout milestone of Septem ber 2018 as delineated in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. All 618-11 site activities are controlled by DOE in accordance with 10 CFR Chapter III. DOE has responsibility for the 618-11 site documented safety analysis (DSA) in accordan ce with 10 CFR 830.204. The currently approved DSA and its associated technical safety re quirements (TSR) establish the safety basis and assess the envir onmental impact of the non-intrus ive activities within the site. The soil overburden covering the caissons and vertical pipe units at the 618-11 site is identified as a passive design feature that serves a mitigative function. Existing so il overburden shall not be removed.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been established between the DOE 618-11 site contractor and Energy Northwes t for communication and mutual support for the non-intrusive activities at the site. The MOU delineates the requirements fo r the site contractor to inform Energy Northwest of plans, sc hedules, manning, and other matters pert aining to the non-intrusive site activities. In addition, the MOU defines Energy Northwest requirements for contractor notification of CGS events with th e potential to affect th e 618-11 site operation and/or personnel. Communication includes notification and evacuation considerations in the event of an emergency at CGS.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 LDCN-09-044 2.1-5 In the event of a 618-11 site em ergency, including the 618-11 s ite design basis event, the 618-11 site is subject to control by the DOE. Control includes notifications, implementation of required actions, and communication of recommendations to protect the health and safety of CGS personnel and the public within and bey ond the Hanford rese rvation boundaries.

The non-intrusive activities, anal yzed 618-11 site events, and th e design basis event associated with the non-intrusive activities, have been assessed and approved by DOE. In addition, Energy Northwest has performed an evaluation of the 618-11 site releases that would occur from the postulated design basis event. The evaluation, using NRC radionuclide transport methodology and CGS mete orological data, has confirmed that the potential 618-11 site releases will not adversely im pact Structures, Systems, and Components or credited operator actions. Implementation of DOE approved non-intrusive activities at the 618-11 site will not affect the operation of CGS, and thus, will not result in a signi ficant hazard to the health and safety of the public from CGS's operation.

2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Control

The only roads within the exclus ion area are the Energy Northwest access roads. These roads are normally used only by employees and visitors associated with the CGS, WNP-1, and WNP-4 facilities, DOE, and DOE cont ractors. The secur ity force, with o ffsite assistance as required, controls tra ffic during emergencies.

2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocation of Roads

There were no public roads transversing the exclusion area that had to be abandoned or relocated as a result of the construction of CGS.

2.1.3 POPULATION

DISTRIBUTION

Table 2.1-1 presents the compass sector population estimates for 198 0 and the forecasts for the same compass sectors by decade from 1990 to 2030.

• Cumulative totals are also shown in Table 2.1-1. This table may be keyed to Figures 2.1-4 and 2.1-5 , which show the sectors and major population centers within 10 and 50 miles of the site. As can be seen in Figure 2.1-6 , population centers, within 50 miles of the site in clude the Tri-Cities area of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick; Moses Lake; Herm iston; and the communities lying along the Yakima River

• Population estimates out to 50 miles were derived to serve the licensing requirements of WNP-1, CGS, and WNP-4. Therefore, estimates were made relative to the centroid of the triangle formed by the three reac tors. This point is locate d 2800 ft east of CGS and has coordinates longitude 11 9º 19' 18" west, latitude 46° 28' 19" north. This shift does not affect the overall accuracy or applicability of the population distribution projections.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.1-6 from Prosser to Toppenish.

Figure 2.1-4 shows that there are no towns located within 10 miles of the site, with the excep tion of a small part of Richland.

The 1990 to 2030 forecasts pr esented here (Reference 2.1-2) are based on

a. 1979 population figures provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management,

b. Benton and Franklin C ounty Traffic Analysis Zone population distributions,

c. Computed annual average area growth rates from 1975 through 1979 which were utilized to obtain the total 1980 population estimated for each area, and

d. County forecasts prepared by the Bonneville Power Administration. (References 2.1-3 and 2.1-4).

Table 2.1-2 presents the compass sect or population estimates for 2000 based on U.S. Census Bureau data (Reference 2.1-5). See also Figures 2.1-4 and 2.1-5. When this table is compared with Table 2.1-1, it is seen that estimates based on the more recent census data are generally less than the projections based on 197 9 data, although the 30-mile cumulative totals are very close (approximately 207,000).

• 2.1.3.1 Population Within Ten Miles

In 2000, an estimated 2945 people were living within 10 miles of the site. The nearest inhabitants occupy farms which ar e located east of Co lumbia River and are thinly spread over five compass sectors. There ar e no permanent inhabitants located within 3 miles of the site.

No significant changes in land use within five miles are anticipated.

The Hanford Site is expected to remain dedicated primarily to industrial use without private residences. No change in the use of the land east of the Columbia Rive r is expected since it currently is irrigated to about the maximum amount practicable. The primary increase in population within the 10-mile radius is expected to be in the area south and south-southwest of the plant (see Figure 2.1-4

).

• The estimates in Table 2.1-2 are centered on the plant, whereas Table 2.1-1 is centered on a point about 0.5 mile to the east. This introduces a minor amount of variation.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.1-7 2.1.3.2 Population Betwee n Ten and Fifty Miles As indicated in Table 2.1-2 , about 357,000 people were estimated to be living within a 50-mile radius of CGS in 2000. Projecti ons for the 10-50 mile region are shown in Table 2.1-1 which is based on earlier (1979-1980) population counts.

2.1.3.3 Transient Population

The transient population consists of agricultural worker s needed for harvesting crops produced in the region, industrial and construction workers, and sportsmen engaged in hunting, fishing, and boating. A description of the transient population is di scussed in Section 5.6 of the CGS Emergency Plan.

2.1.3.4 Low Population Zone

The low population zone (LPZ) [see 10 CFR 100.

3(b)] for CGS is defined as all land within a

3-mile radius of the reactor. This LPZ was selected on the basis th at it is not expected to have a large population in the future and that effective protective measures could be established. As shown in Table 2.1-2, no permanent residents are located within a 3-mile radius of the reactor, and none are anticipated in the future.

There are no public faciliti es or institutions such as schools a nd hospitals within a 3-mile radius of the plant. The transportation facilities and topographic feat ures of the LPZ are shown in Figure 2.1-7.

2.1.3.5 Population Center

The nearest population center is the City of Richland, 12 miles to the south.

2.1.3.6 Population Density

In 2000, the population densities within the 10, 20, and 30-mile radii were 9, 96, and 73 people per square miles, respectively. In 2030, the dens ities out to the sa me distances are estimated to be 13, 123, and 84, respectively, based on the projections in Table 2.1-1.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.1-8 2.

1.4 REFERENCES

2.1-1 Letter from Atomic Energy Commiss ion, Richland Operations Office, to Managing Director of the Supply Syst em, Washington Public Power Supply System,

Subject:

Appendix 2P, November 25, 1970.

2.1-2 Yandon, K. E., Projections and Distributions of Popul ations Within a 50-Mile Radius of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects Nos. 1, 2, and 4 by Compass Direction and Rad ii Intervals, 1970-2030, October 1980.

2.1-3 Bonneville Power Admini stration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,

Subject:

Population, Employment a nd Household Project ions to 2000 by County, July 1979.

2.1-4 Bonneville Power Admi nistration, U.S. Depart ment of Energy, Oregon Population, Employment and Household Projections to 2000 by County.

2.1-5 J. P. Chasse, Energy Northwest, personal communication with M. Mohrman, Washington Office of Financial Management, December 4, 2002, and

J. P. Chasse, Energy Northwest, U pdated 50-Mile Popul ation Estimate, personal communication with J. D. Arbuckl e, Energy Northwest, July 29, 2003.

Table 2.1-1 Projected Population D i stribution by Comp a ss Sector and Distance from the Site 19 8 0 19 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 0 Distance Cumulative (mile s) Direction (comp a s s segm e n t) Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT Dece m ber 2003 LDC N-0 3-0 2 3 2.1-9 0-3 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-5 N-N N E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 10 10 35 35 48 48 52 52 55 55 86 86 E N E 22 32 43 78 56 104 60 112 63 118 64 150 E 22 54 43 121 56 160 60 172 63 181 64 214 ESE 22 76 43 164 56 216 60 232 63 244 64 278 SE 4 80 6 170 9 225 11 243 11 255 12 290 SSE-N N W 0 80 0 170 0 225 0 243 0 255 0 290 5-10 N 26 106 58 228 77 302 83 326 87 342 88 378 NNE 83 189 126 354 152 454 162 488 170 512 172 550

NE 155 344 198 552 224 678 240 728 252 764 254 804

ENE 114 458 157 709 177 855 190 918 200 964 202 10 0 6 E 135 593 200 909 257 11 1 2 276 11 9 4 290 12 5 4 293 12 9 9 ESE 168 761 276 11 8 5 341 14 5 3 366 15 6 0 385 16 3 9 389 16 8 8 SE 190 951 406 15 9 1 536 19 8 9 575 21 3 5 604 22 4 3 610 22 9 8 SSE 45 996 253 18 4 4 308 22 9 7 330 24 6 5 347 25 9 0 350 26 4 8 S 50 10 4 6 272 21 1 6 483 27 8 0 518 29 8 3 544 31 3 4 550 31 9 8 SSW 235 12 8 1 535 26 5 1 809 35 8 9 867 38 5 0 911 40 4 5 920 41 1 8 SW 25 13 0 6 25 26 7 6 25 36 1 4 27 38 7 7 28 40 7 3 29 41 4 7 WSW-NNW 0 13 0 6 0 26 7 6 0 36 1 4 0 38 7 7 0 40 7 3 0 41 4 7 10-2 0 N 332 16 3 8 371 30 4 7 398 40 1 12 427 43 0 4 449 45 2 2 454 46 0 1 NNE 328 19 6 6 371 34 1 8 397 44 0 9 426 47 3 0 447 49 6 9 452 50 5 3 NE 399 23 6 5 562 39 8 0 588 49 9 7 630 43 6 0 662 56 3 1 669 57 2 2 E N E 792 31 5 7 835 48 1 5 855 58 5 2 917 62 7 7 964 65 9 5 974 66 9 6 E 461 36 1 8 479 52 9 4 544 63 9 6 583 68 6 0 613 72 0 8 619 73 1 5 ESE 192 38 1 0 430 57 2 4 576 69 7 2 618 74 7 8 650 78 5 8 657 79 7 2 SE 41 5 5 79 6 5 52 2 1 10 9 45 58 2 1 12 7 93 62 4 2 13 7 20 65 6 1 14 4 19 66 2 7 14 5 99 SSE 49178 57143 63483 74428 70917 83710 76043 89763 79932 94351 80 7 34 95 3 33 S 28 9 43 86 0 86 37 6 72 11 2 100 45 4 34 12 9 144 48 7 17 13 8 480 51 2 08 14 5 559 51 7 22 14 7 055 SSW 15 9 2 87 6 78 17 7 2 11 3 872 19 2 2 13 1 066 20 6 1 14 0 541 21 6 6 14 7 725 21 8 8 14 9 243 SW 31 0 6 90 7 84 35 9 7 11 7 469 894 13 4 960 41 7 5 14 4 716 43 8 9 15 2 114 44 3 3 15 3 676 WSW 950 91 7 34 10 4 8 11 8 517 11 0 8 13 6 068 11 8 8 14 5 904 12 4 8 15 3 362 12 6 0 15 4 936 W 0 91 7 34 0 11 8 517 0 13 6 068 0 14 5 904 0 15 3 362 0 15 4 936 WNW 0 91 7 34 0 11 8 517 0 13 6 068 0 14 5 904 0 15 3 362 0 15 4 936 NW 0 91 7 34 0 11 8 517 0 13 6 068 0 14 5 904 0 15 3 362 0 15 4 936 NNW 0 91 7 34 0 11 8 517 0 13 6 068 0 14 5 904 0 15 3 362 0 15 4 936 Table 2.1-1 Projected Population D i stribution by Compass Sec t or and Distance from the Site (Continued) 19 8 0 19 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 0 Distance Cumulative (mile s) Direction (comp a s s segm e n t) Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT Dece m ber 2003 LDC N-0 3-0 2 3 2.1-10 20-3 0 N 15 0 1 93 2 35 18 3 7 12 0 354 20 5 5 13 8 123 22 0 3 14 8 107 23 1 6 15 5 678 23 3 9 15 7 275 NNE 57 5 9 98 9 94 64 8 7 12 6 841 71 2 3 14 5 246 76 3 8 15 5 745 80 2 9 16 3 707 81 1 0 16 5 385 NE 20 1 5 10 1 009 21 7 4 12 9 015 22 7 4 14 7 520 24 3 8 15 8 183 25 6 3 16 6 270 25 8 9 16 7 974 E N E 17 1 7 10 2 726 17 6 0 13 0 775 17 8 6 14 9 306 19 1 5 16 0 098 20 1 3 16 8 283 20 3 3 17 0 007 E 151 10 2 877 194 13 0 969 220 14 9 526 236 16 0 334 248 16 8 531 250 17 0 257 ESE 153 10 3 030 240 13 1 209 305 14 9 831 327 16 0 661 344 16 8 875 348 17 0 605 SE 61 3 8 10 9 168 65 1 2 13 7 721 67 3 8 15 6 569 72 2 5 16 7 886 75 9 4 17 6 469 76 7 0 17 8 275 SSE 24 1 16 13 3 284 32 5 59 17 0 280 36 3 60 19 2 929 38 9 87 20 6 873 42 0 32 21 8 501 42 4 54 22 0 729 S 187 13 3 471 678 17 0 958 975 19 3 904 10 4 5 20 7 918 10 9 8 21 9 599 11 0 9 22 1 838 SSW 875 13 4 346 12 1 8 17 2 176 14 2 6 19 5 330 15 2 9 20 9 447 16 0 7 22 1 206 16 2 3 22 3 461 SW 61 6 5 14 0 511 71 4 7 17 9 323 77 3 7 20 3 067 82 9 6 21 7 743 87 2 0 22 9 926 88 0 8 23 2 269 WSW 16 2 6 14 2 137 17 9 9 18 1 122 19 0 8 20 4 975 20 4 6 21 9 789 21 5 1 23 2 077 21 7 3 23 4 442 W 11 9 1 14 3 328 13 2 5 18 2 447 14 2 9 20 6 404 15 3 2 22 1 321 16 1 0 23 3 687 16 2 6 23 6 068 WNW 185 14 3 513 280 18 2 727 297 20 6 701 318 22 1 639 334 23 4 021 338 23 6 406 NW 40 14 3 553 44 18 2 771 48 20 6 749 51 22 1 690 54 23 4 075 55 23 6 461 NNW 182 14 3 735 200 18 2 971 218 20 6 967 234 22 1 924 246 23 4 321 249 23 6 710 30-4 0 N 980 14 4 715 10 9 6 18 4 065 11 2 7 20 8 094 12 0 8 22 3 132 12 7 0 23 5 591 12 8 3 23 7 993 NNE 31 9 8 14 7 913 36 6 3 18 7 728 39 8 3 21 2 077 42 7 1 22 7 403 44 9 0 24 0 081 45 3 6 24 2 529 NE 650 14 8 563 800 18 8 528 745 21 2 822 799 22 8 202 846 24 0 927 850 24 3 379 E N E 421 14 8 984 447 18 8 975 475 21 3 297 509 22 8 711 535 24 1 462 540 24 3 919 E 128 14 9 112 136 18 9 111 141 21 3 438 152 22 8 863 160 24 1 622 162 24 4 081 ESE 167 14 9 279 176 18 9 287 182 21 3 620 195 22 9 058 205 24 1 827 208 24 4 289 SE 464 14 9 743 484 18 9 771 497 21 4 117 533 22 9 591 560 24 2 387 566 24 4 855 SSE 592 15 0 335 844 19 0 615 955 21 5 072 10 2 3 23 0 615 10 7 6 24 3 463 10 8 7 24 5 942 S 46 8 0 15 5 015 56 5 3 19 6 268 63 6 8 22 1 440 68 2 8 23 7 442 71 7 2 25 0 635 72 5 0 25 3 192 SSW 256 15 5 271 424 19 6 692 529 22 1 969 567 23 8 009 596 25 1 231 602 25 3 794 SW 473 15 5 744 661 19 7 353 786 22 2 755 842 23 8 851 885 25 2 116 894 25 4 688 WSW 21 8 71 17 7 615 24 7 29 22 2 082 26 8 90 24 9 645 28 8 33 26 7 684 30 3 62 28 2 478 30 6 65 28 5 353 W 35 7 8 18 1 193 39 4 9 22 6 031 42 7 3 25 3 918 45 8 2 27 2 266 48 1 6 28 7 294 48 6 4 29 0 217 WNW 13 9 9 18 2 592 14 5 9 22 7 490 15 7 9 25 5 497 16 9 3 27 3 959 17 8 0 28 9 074 17 9 8 29 2 015 NW 703 18 3 295 770 22 8 260 836 25 6 333 896 27 4 855 942 29 0 016 952 29 2 967 NNW 15 7 5 18 4 870 17 3 8 22 9 998 18 9 9 25 8 232 20 3 6 27 6 891 21 4 0 29 2 156 21 6 1 29 5 128 40-5 0 N 17 8 72 20 2 742 19 7 30 24 9 728 21 5 72 27 9 804 23 1 30 30 0 021 24 3 12 31 6 468 24 5 56 31 9 684 NNE 893 20 3 635 10 1 9 25 0 747 11 2 1 28 0 925 12 0 2 30 1 223 12 6 3 31 7 731 12 7 5 32 0 959 NE 926 20 4 561 11 3 9 25 1 886 12 7 5 28 2 200 13 6 7 30 2 590 14 3 7 31 9 168 14 5 1 32 2 410 E N E 213 20 4 774 243 25 2 129 375 28 2 575 402 30 2 992 423 31 9 591 427 32 2 837 E 241 20 5 015 258 25 2 387 268 28 2 843 287 30 3 279 302 31 9 893 305 32 3 142 ESE 864 20 5 879 925 25 3 312 961 28 3 804 10 3 0 30 4 309 10 8 3 32 0 976 10 9 5 32 4 237 Table 2.1-1 Projected Population D i stribution by Compass Sec t or and Distance from the Site (Continued) 19 8 0 19 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 0 Distance Cumulative (mile s) Direction (comp a s s segm e n t) Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total Numb er Cumulative Total C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT Dece m ber 2003 LDC N-0 3-0 2 3 2.1-11 40-50 (c ont.) SE 20 8 4 20 7 963 22 4 5 25 5 57 23 4 9 28 6 153 25 1 8 30 6 827 26 4 6 32 3 622 26 7 3 32 6 910 SSE 17 4 0 20 9 703 19 2 0 25 7 477 20 7 2 28 8 225 22 2 2 30 9 049 23 3 6 32 5 958 23 5 9 32 9 269 S 16 5 40 22 6 243 16 4 06 27 3 883 17 7 08 30 5 933 18 9 87 32 8 036 19 9 58 34 5 916 20 1 58 34 9 427 SSW 26 1 0 22 8 853 28 9 5 27 6 778 29 7 2 30 8 905 31 8 6 33 1 222 33 4 9 34 9 265 34 2 8 35 2 855 SW 421 22 9 274 443 27 7 221 476 30 9 381 509 33 1 731 535 34 9 800 541 35 3 396 WSW 809 23 0 083 892 27 8 113 965 31 0 346 10 3 5 33 2 766 10 8 8 35 0 888 10 9 9 35 4 495 W 18 5 15 24 8 598 20 4 81 29 8 594 22 1 76 33 2 525 23 7 80 35 6 546 24 9 96 37 5 884 25 2 47 37 9 742 WNW 17 4 2 25 0 340 19 0 3 30 0 497 20 4 3 33 4 568 21 9 1 35 8 737 23 0 3 37 8 187 23 2 6 38 2 068 NW 812 25 1 152 859 30 1 356 905 33 5 473 970 35 9 707 10 2 0 37 9 207 10 3 0 38 3 098 NNW 532 25 1 684 587 30 1 943 642 33 6 115 688 36 0 395 723 37 9 930 730 38 3 828

Table 2.1-2 2000 Popul a tion Distributi on by Compass Sector and Distance from the Site LDC N-0 3-0 2 3 2.1-12 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT Dece m ber 2003 Distance (miles) Direction (compass segment) 2000 Population Distance (miles) Direction (compass segment) 2000 Population Distance (miles) Direction (compass segment) 2000 Population 0-3 ALL 0 5-10 N 33 10-20 N 169 5-10 NNE 71 10-20 NNE 680 3-4 NNE 0 5-10 NE 294 10-20 NE 1,535 3-4 ENE 2 5-10 ENE 281 10-20 ENE 912 3-4 E 4 5-10 E 312 10-20 E 567 3-4 ESE 3 5-10 ESE 369 10-20 ESE 479 3-4 SE-NNW 0 5-10 SE 471 10-20 SE 13,1 4 7 5-10 SSE 118 10-20 SSE 65,2 4 7 4-5 N-NNE 0 5-10 S 391 10-20 S 27,0 9 5 4-5 NE 12 5-10 SSW 481 10-20 SSW 6,517 4-5 ENE 25 5-10 SW 17 10-20 SW 1,426 4-5 E 31 5-10 WSW-NW 0 10-20 WSW 21 4-5 ESE 24 5-10 NNW 3 10-20 WNW 0 4-5 SE 3 10-20 NNW 8 4-5 SSE-NNW 0 0-5 TOTAL 104 0-10 TOTAL 2,945 0-20 TOTAL 120, 7 48 20-30 N 1,158 30-40 N 1,077 40-50 N 30,1 6 8 20-30 NNE 10,6 6 3 30-40 NNE 3,643 40-50 NNE 713 20-30 NE 502 30-40 NE 251 40-50 NE 733 20-30 ENE 3,089 30-40 ENE 370 40-50 ENE 179 20-30 E 74 30-40 E 143 40-50 E 92 20-30 ESE 424 30-40 ESE 959 40-50 ESE 215 20-30 SE 14,781 30-40 SE 366 40-50 SE 2,915 20-30 SSE 42,124 30-40 SSE 408 40-50 SSE 3,876 20-30 S 841 30-40 S 5,494 40-50 S 19,6 4 4 20-30 SSW 143 30-40 SSW 186 40-50 SSW 3,857 20-30 SW 9,560 30-40 SW 1,398 40-50 SW 209 20-30 WSW 1,561 30-40 WSW 36,199 40-50 WSW 3,801 20-30 W 81 30-40 W 954 40-50 W 20,9 3 4 20-30 WNW 210 30-40 WNW 3,861 40-50 WNW 8 20-30 NW 531 30-40 NW 1,870 40-50 NW 577 20-30 NNW 406 30-40 NNW 3,290 40-50 NNW 1,707 0-30 TOTAL 206,896 0-40 TOTAL 267,365 0-50 TOTAL 356, 9 93 Table based on April 2000 Ce nsus Bureau counts.

General Area, 0 - 20 Miles1-1.202.603099Form No. 960690 Amendment 55 May 2001 Figure.veR.oN .warD Sandpit Eltopia Ranch Water Tank 17 17 395 Hathaway 800Basin City 770 170 Ranch Savage IslandBasin City Ranch Ranch Frischnecht Shano Radio Tower Radio Tower Mesa SMITH CANYON OLD MAID Water Tank Othello Air Force Sta CactusSaddle Gap Potholes East Canal US Government RR Mathews Corner RINGOLD FLAT 260 Camp Lake Scooteney Reservoir T Lake WASHTUCNA COULEE Clark Pond P A R A D I S E F L A T S Canal Eagle Lakes SURVIVAL TRAINING AREA JUNIPER FOREST Water Tank Gravel pit Gravel pit Radio Tower Radio Tower Humorist 12 Quarry RYE GRASS COULEE Water Tank 124 Gravel pit Glade Pasco Substa Substa Ice Harbor Dam JACKASS MOUNTAIN Water Tank Wooded Island ESQUATZEL COULEE Diversion Channel Esquatzel RichlandPasco West Vista 521 Columbia Point Tri-Cities Airport 407 Potholes Canal WT Pipeline 395 Sacajawea State Park SNAKE RIVER UN ION PAC IFIC Hedges WT Substa 14 Vista Columbia Canal KENNEWICK Franklin Co Irr Can NORTHERN Columbia Canal BADGER MOUNTAIN Canal Island View Richland 391 221 Grain elevator Grain elevator Gravel pit 240 224 Ranch Radio TowerGrain elevatorGrain elevator Badger Canyon BadgerCandy Mtn.

Fast Flux Test Facility RATTLESNAKE HILLS Water Tank Water TanksKelly Gulch Horn Rapids Dam WTCorral Canyon WT Radio Tower Observatory Pumping Station McWhorter 1356 West Richland RED MOUNTAINGoose Hill UNION PACIFIC Benton City BURLINGTON Gibbon WhitstrandChandler Butte Sunnyside Canal Chaffee Pumping Station Ranch RanchRoza Canal UNION PACIFIC Prosser SpringWebber Canyon Roza CanalBlack Canyon Spring CrSnipes Creek 24 243 24 W A H L U K E S L O P E Ranch Christensen Bros 840 Mattawa 750White Bluffs SADDLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CABLE BUTTE Hanford CABLE MOUNTAINCoyote RapidsHanford Ditch Towers Water Tank Benson Spring Locke Island Substa BENTON CO FRANKLIN CO 82 Dam North Prosser 82 12 12 82 Kiona Gravel pit 182 182 12 Chandler Island View Sacajawea State Park Route 4 South Route 4 South Route 11A Basin Hill Rd.Hollingsworth Rd.Bellflower Rd.Columbia Rd.Mountain Vista RdRoute 10 South Route 2 South Horn Rapids Rd.Stevens Dr.Selph Landing Rd.

Taylor Flats Rd.

Glade North Rd.

Alder Rd Birch Rd.W. Sagemoor Rd.

Cedar Dogwood Elm Rd.West Fir Rd.Eltopia Rd.

Fir Rd.Fir Way Glenwood Glenwood Auburn Rd.

N. Belleview Rd.N. Belleview Rd.N. Coulee Rd.

CootonIronwood Rd.

W. Juniper Rd.Russell Rd.

W. Klamath Rd.

Sheffield Rd.Juniper Rd.Olympia Dr.

Glade North Rd.

Ash R 170 Harrington VanGiesonGeorge Washinton Way N. Rd 68 W. Sagemoor Rd.

Finley Prosser 694 MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WALLA Stevens Country Christian Country Haven Edwin Markum Big River COLD CREEK VALLEY H A N F O R D R E S E R V A T I O N YAKIMA RIVER Iowa Flats N Power Plant Loop Columbia Generating Station Kinder-Care KiBe Burbank Hi wood GRANT CO20 Statute Miles 15 10 5 0 530 Kilometers 25 15 10 5 0 5 20 SCALE Railroad Pipeline PowerlineMedium Duty Road Light Duty RoadHeavy Duty Road 395 260 Landplane Airport Landing AreaFederal Route MarkerState Route

Interstate Route 80NPark or Reservation BoundarySandpit or Gravelpit Populated Places Radio Tower, Well Latitude/LongitudeEmergency Center LEGEND 5 MILES10 MILES20 MILES FFTF Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report Hepner JunctionPin e C reek pit pit Sandpit Eltopia Ranch Water Tank Water Tank 17 260 260 26 261 260 Gravel pit 17 Five Corners 395 395 Hathaway 800 Pent 884 Watson 1349Baumann Farm 1600 Othello 1145 Basin City 770 170 Ranch Savage Island Basin City Ranch Ranch Lower Monumental DamPleasant View Farm FIELDS GULCH Ayer Ranch PALOUSE FALLS RECREATION AREA Farm Harder DUNNIGAN COULEE Davin Skookum Can 261 Grain Elevator Grain Elevator Old RR grade Connell Connell City 925 Grain Elevator WASHTUCNA COULEE Rattlesnake Can COULEE HARDESTY Michigan P ra irie Washtucna Kahlotus SAND HILLS COULEE Hatton HATTON C OULEE ENE E R A T T L E S N A K E F L A TCunningham Canyon PROVIDENCE COULEEPipeline Grain Elevator Cunningham Frischnecht Shano Bruce BURLINGTO NNORTHER N Radio Tower Radio Tower Mesa Devils Canyon SMITH CANYON OLD MAID COULE E Water Tank SITE Othello Air Force Sta Cactus OthelloEL E CT RIFIE D Taunton Saddle Gap Potholes East Canal US Governm ent RR Ranch BURLINGTON NORTHERN UNION PACIFIC Lower Monumental 813Farrington pit Scott Magallon Mathews Corner RINGOLD FLAT Fisher Ranch 1521 10 MI 20 MI 30 MI 40 MI 50 MI 260 Rattlesnake Lake Camp Lake Scooteney Reservoir T Lake WASHTUCNA COULEE Clark Pond Lake Kahlotus Sulfur Lake P A R A D I S E F L A T S Low Canal Eagle Lakes Dry Lake ESE Prescott Harsha Lamar Eurica Grain elevator Grain elevator ElwoodClyde Grain elevator Hatch Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Hadley Walker Page Valley Grove Ennis Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Whitman Station Substa Substa College Place WALLA WALLA Lowden Touchet Martin Slater Pipeline 12 395 Zanger Junction Reese Climax Siding Grain elevator SURVIVAL TRAINING AREA JUNIPER FOREST Water Tank Gravel pit Gravel pit Redd Levey Water Tank Grain elevator Grain elevator JOHNSON BUTTE The Butte Radio Tower Radio Tower Wallula Water Tank Humorist MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Nine Mile Canyon Compressor Station 540 Snake River 12 Quarry Walker Canyon RYE GRASS FLATEEL U OC SSARG EYR Water Tank Quarry 124 Lake Sacajawea Gravel pit Glade Pasco Substa Substa Ice Harbor Dam JACKASS MOUNTAIN Water Tank Wooded Island Taylor Flat ESQUATZEL COULEE Diversion Channel Esquatzel Richland Pasco West Vista 521 Columbia Point Tri-Cities Airport 407 Potholes Canal WTPipeline Dry Hollow E U R E K A F L A T Winnett Canyon Winnett Canyon Badger Hollow Badger Hollow Gravel pitBURLINGTON NORTH ERNBUR LINGTO N N ORT HER N SPRING VALLEYWebber Canyon W oodward C anyon Burbank Finley Nine Canyon 395 Sacajawea State Park WT SNAKE RIVER L A K E W A L L U L A UNION PACIFICUNION PA CIFIC Hedges WT Substa Grain elevator Gravel pit Radio Towers Radio Tower Grain elevator Williams Wells Amon Well Young Wells Coyote Spring 14 Bowden Springs Bofer Canyon Taylor Canyon Four Canyon Straub Canyon Vista Cress Wells Columbia Canal KENNEWICKFranklin Co Irr Can N ORTHERNBURLING T O N NO RTHERN C olumbia CanalBAD G E R M O U N TA IN Canal Switzler CanyonPipeline HORSE HEAVEN HILLS D ry Creek Walla Walla River WHITMAN MISSIONNHSWalla Walla R iver Island View Richland 391 124 260 McNary Dam L A K E W A L L U L A WASHINGTON OREGON SE S Gardena Windmill Big Well Cold Springs Reservoir Hunt DitchGreasewood Creek Pine Dry Cr Burling a m e D itc h To P endleton 395 730 730 30 84 Umatilla River 207 32 SSE Milton-Freewater Walla Walla Valley Umapine Walla Walla River Skyranch 850 Page 850 204 Weston Athena 11 11 Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator WT WT Bowlus Hill Grain elevator Oregon Sky Ranch 357 Grain elevator Holdman WT NORTH FORK JUNIPER CANYON NORTH FORK COLD SPRING S CANY O N SO UTH F O RK JUNIPER CAN YON MIDDLE FORK COLD SPRINGS CANYON SOUTH FORK COLD SPRINGS CANYON COLD SPRINGS CANYON DESPAIN GULCH S T A GE G ULCH JUNIPER CANYONRUSH CA NYON Switzler Canyon Tank BURLINGTON NORTHERN WARM SPRINGS CANYON VA NSYCLE C ANYO N Grain elevator 37 FOURMILE GAP Echo HAT ROCK STATE PARK UMATILLA BUTTE Hermiston State Stanfield Hinkle SILLUSI BUTTE HERMISTON BUTTE Hermiston McNary Power City Substation HERMISTON BUTTEUNION PACIFIC 207 COLD SPRINGS NWR 84 221 SSW 14 14 BOARDMAN BOMBING RANGE 730LAKE UMATILLAUMATILLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COLUMBIA RIVER Hepner Junction GOLGOTHA BUTTE 84 CANOE RIDGE ALDER RIDGE ALDER RIDGE Windmill Windmill Boardman 390 PATERSON DEAD CANYON TULE CANYON Rattlesnake Spring Ranch Ranch Ordnance Water tower Umatilla Army Depot RIDGE UMATILLA ORDNANCE DEPOT Westland West Extension Irrigation Canal Disposal Plant Irrigon UNION PACIFIC Water Tower BURLINGTON Paterson FOURMILE CANYON WARD BUTTE FINLEY BUTTES BING CANYON East Branch Glade Creek COYOTE COULEE Boardman Coyote Canyon SAND RIDGE Windmill Ranch Windmill Ranch Cemetery Cleveland Bickleton Cemetery STEGEMAN CANYON SW BIG HORN CANYON WOOD GULCH DOUTY CANYON Ald er C reek Pine Creek SPRING CANYON Crow Butte 221 Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Gravel pit 240 224 241 223 22 22 Ranch H O R S E H E A V E N H I L L S Cem Ranch Grain elevator Ranch Grain elevator Ranch Radio Tower Gravel pit Gravel pit Ranch Grain elevator Carter Canyon Grain elev Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Ranch Badger Canyon Badger Candy Mtn.

Fast Flux Test Facility RATTLESNAKE HILLS Water Tank Water Tanks Kelly Gulch Horn Rapids Dam WT Corral Canyon WT Radio Tower Observatory Pumping Station McWhorter 1356 West Richland Iowa FlatsRED M OUNTAIN Goose Hill UNION PACIFIC Benton City BURLINGTON Gibbon Whitstrand Chandler Butte Sunnyside Canal Chaffee Pumping Station Ranch Ranch Roza Canal YAKIM A RIVER UNION PACIFIC HORSE HEAVEN HILLS Prosser 694 GRANDVIEW BUTTE Pumping Station Sunnyside 764 Lichty Sunnyside Bryon Ranch Pumping Station Pumping Station Toppenish Buena Outlook Emerald Granger Giffen Lake TOPPENISH NWR WSW Yakima I R Hdqrs NO RT H ERN BUR LING T ON Granger Farm

Labor Camp Pumping Station TOPPENISH NWR SNIPES MOUNTAIN BURLIN GTON HEMBRE MTN Satus Mabton WT Cem Pumping Station Sulfur Spring Water Tanks Radio Tower Liberty Oleys Lake Grange Mabton West Canal Yakima Indian Reservation Grain elevator Bluelight Windmill Grain elevator Radio Station Radio Tower Moore Canyon Coyote Canyon Gravel pit Prosser pit 97 97 Lozier Springs Campbell Spring Maiden Spring Spring Webber Canyon Mabton Siphon Toppenish Creek Toppenish C reekWapity Slough Satus No. 2 Pump Canal Sunnyside Canal Zillah Roza Canal Sulfur Cr Black CanyonSpring Cr Snipes Creek Water 410 PipelineEast Branch Glade Cr McKinley Spring Glade Creek Glade C re ek WNW W 24 24 243 24 Ranch Ranch Range Central Cem Observation post Badger Gap Squaw Tit Firing Center AAF Y A K I M A R I D G E U M T A N U M R I D G E Y A K I M A F I R I N G C E N T E R SADD LE MOUNT A IN S SADDLE MOUNTAINS CORRAL CANYON SOURDOUGH CA NYO N ALKALI CANYON SADDLE MOUNTAINS NW N NE W A H L U K E S L O P E Ranch Priest Rapids Dam Mattawa Christensen Bros 840 SMYRNA BENCH CNWR CNWR CNWR Beverly Ranch WAHATIS PEAK Mattawa 750 Desert 570 Corfu Ranch ROYAL SLOPE Water Tank CNWR CNWR CNWR Schwana White Bluffs SADDLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CABLE BUTTE Hanford CABLE MOUNTAIN Coyote Rapids Lower Crab Creek WT CNWR Cold Creek Hanford Ditch Towers Ranch Ranch Water TankCOLD CREE K VA LLEY Benson Spring Locke Island Dry Cr Horsethief Pt Cairn Hope Peak Emerson Nipple Substa H A N F O R D R E S E R V A T I O N Wapato Sawyer Donald Pumping station ELEPHANT MOUNTAIN HILLS ZILLAH PEAK M OXEE VA LLEY Moxee City RATTLESNAKE HILLS Ranch Tower Plant Quarantine Station BLAC K ROCK VALLEY Ranch Ranch Cem High Top R A T T L E S N A K E H I L L S R A T T L E S N A K E H I L L S Radio Facility KITTITAS CANYONMoxee Canal Moxee Canal Selah Creek Hanson Creek McDonald Springs Cottonwood Creek Black Rock Spring Sentinel GapSentinel Bluffs ELECTRIFIED Smyrna SENTINEL MOUNTAIN Cem Priest Rapids Lake NNW SAND DUNES WHISKEY DICK MTN ROCKY COULEE S PRING GULCH Caribou Creek RYEGRASS COULEE PARK MIDDLE CANYON HULT BUTTEJOHNSON CANYON BOYLSTON MOUNTAINS Rock Spring Poison Spring Lone Star Spring RYEGRASS MOUNTAIN Wippe Pumping Station Badger C r Fire station Kittitas Microwave Tower SCHNEBLY COULEE F R E N C H M A N H I L L S Winchester Wasteway Moses Lake Sky Ranch 1100 George SAND HILLS Potholes State Park THE POTHOLES 10 Mae 10 Ranch 90 90 26 CNWR Christensen 1150 F R E N C H M A N H I L L S Cem Camp Royal City NATURAL CORRAL LARSON AFB IMPACT AREA Red Rock Coulee CNWR W est Canal Frenchman Hills Lake Royal Lake Wanapum Dam CNWR Frenchman Springs POTHOLES COULEE BABCOCK BENCH LAVA GINKGO PETRIFIED FOREST PARK Sand Hollow BABCOCK RIDGE Stan Coffin Lake CRESCENT BAR CRESCENT BAR 281 283 Leslie Creek Skookumchuck Creek Johnson Cr Boylston BADGER POCKET East Kittitas Airway BeaconTrail Creek North Branch Canal Beacon HIAWATHA VALLEY SAND DUNES 17 17 10 90 Larson Air Force Base 1186 Moses Lake POTHOLES RESERVOIR Moses Lake 1200 21 21 261 261 Ritzville Ritzville 1800 21 395 NNE Lind Dewald 1880 Warden Water Franz Ranch Schrag Station Laing Station Refinery Wheeler Raugust Station Windmill LIND COULEE Radio Tower Dryland Experiment Providence Grain elevators Grain elevators Lind 1491 Servia LIND COULEE BOWERS COULEE LIND CO ULEE Pipeline New Warden 1265 Grain elevator Gravel pit Pipeline NORTHERN PACIFIC Underground aqueduct CHICAGO MILWAUKEE ST PAUL AND PACIFIC FARRIER COULEE Windmill WindmillPAHA COU LEE Paha NORTHERN PACIFIC 10 90 Ralston McElroy Lake Pizarro Grain elev ROCKY COULEE Underground aqueduct Lewis Horn Pelican Horn LIND CO ULEE Bassett Junction McDonald Siding Windmill Tiflis Ritell Siding NORTHERN PACIFICCHICAGO MILWAUKEE S T PAUL AND PACIFIC Rocky Coule e WastewayO'Sullivan Dam Sielen Siding Upper Goose Lake JACKASS MOUNTAIN Parker Horn Soda Lake COLUMBIA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Goose Lake Shiner Lake Morgan Lake Taggars 1149 Kent Farms 1155 Beatrice Gravel pit Roxboro WEBER COULEE Meter Station Hillcrest Ruff KITTITAS CO GRANT CO ADAMS CO BENTON CO FRANKLIN CO YAKIMA CO KLICKITAT CO WALLA WALLA CO UMATILLA CO MORROW CO 82 Plymouth 82 12 82 82 12 Cem Grandview Dam North Prosser 82BURLIN G TON 12 12 82 Kiona Gravel pit 182 182 12 Chandler Island View Sacajawea State Park Sixprong Creek Sudbury Route 4 South Route 4 South Route 11A Basin Hill Rd.

Hollingsworth Rd.

Bellflower Rd.

Columbia Rd.

Mountain Vista Rd Route 10 South Route 2 South Horn Rapids Rd.

Stevens Dr.

Selph Landing Rd.

Taylor Flats Rd.

Glade North Rd.

Alder Rd Birch Rd.W. Sagemoor Rd.

Cedar Dogwood Elm Rd.West Fir Rd.

Eltopia Rd.

Fir Rd.Fir Way Glenwood Glenwood Auburn Rd.

N. Belleview Rd.N. Belleview Rd.N. Coulee Rd.

Cootonwood Ironwood Rd.

W. Juniper Rd.

Russell Rd.

W. Klamath Rd.

Sheffield Rd.

Juniper Rd.

Olympia Dr.

Glade North Rd.

Ash R 170 Harrington VanGieson George Washinton Way N. Rd 68 W. Sagemoor Rd.

46°00'46°30'46°45'46°15'45°45'47°00'Longitude Latitude 46°00'46°30'46°45'46°15'47°00'Latitude Longitude 119°00'118°45'118°30'119°30'120°00'119°45'119°15'120°15'119°00'118°45'118°30'119°30'120°00'119°45'119°15'120°15'12 395 395 395 395 30 30 General Area, 0 - 50 Miles 990306.60 2.1-2Form No. 960690 Amendment 55 May 2001 Figure Draw. No.Rev.60 Miles50 Miles Pendleton 1493 37 Grain elevator ST AGE GULCH MISSOURI GULCH Railroad Pipeline Powerline Medium Duty Road Light Duty Road Heavy Duty Road LEGEND 395 260 Landplane Airport Landing Area Federal Route Marker State Route Interstate Route 80N Park or Reservation Boundary Sandpit or Gravelpit Populated Places Radio Tower, Well Latitude/Longitude 930114.50 Mi Aug 1998 SCALE 20 Statute Miles 15 10 5 0 5 30 Kilometers 25 15 10 5 0 5 20 45°45'Brushy Creek Columbia Generating Station 50 Mile Ingestion Exposure Emergency Planning Zone N Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report Figure Not Available For Public Viewing Amendment 55 May 2001 Project Area Map - 10 Mile Radius4-1.201.603099 FigureForm No. 960690.veR.oN .warD Eltopia Ranch Water TankBasin City 770 170 Ranch Savage IslandBasin City Ranch Ranch US Government RR Mathews Corner RINGOLD FLAT Camp Lake Clark Pond Radio Tower Gravel pit Glade Pasco JACKASS MOUNTAIN Water Tank Wooded Island ESQUATZEL COULEE Diversion Channel Esquatzel RichlandPasco West Vista 521 Columbia Point Tri-Cities Airport 407 Potholes Canal WT 395 Sacajawea State Park WT Substa 14 Vista KENNEWICK Franklin Co Irr Can NORTHERN Columbia Canal BADGER MOUNTAIN Island View Richland 391 Grain elevator 240 224Grain elevatorGrain elevator BadgerCandy Mtn.

Fast Flux Test Facility RATTLESNAKE HILLS Water Tank Water Tanks Horn Rapids

Dam WTCorral Canyon WT Radio Tower Observatory Pumping Station McWhorter 1356 West Richland RED MOUNTAINGoose Hill UNION PACIFIC Benton City BURLINGTONChandler Butte ChaffeeRoza CanalWebber CanyonWhite Bluffs CABLE BUTTE Hanford CABLE MOUNTAINCoyote RapidsHanford Ditch Towers BENTON CO 82 12 12 82 Kiona Gravel pit 182 182 12 Chandler Island View Sacajawea State Park Route 4 South Route 4 South Route 11A Basin Hill Rd.Hollingsworth Rd.Bellflower Rd.

Columbia Rd.Mountain Vista RdRoute 10 South Route 2 South Horn Rapids Rd.Stevens Dr.Selph Landing Rd.

Taylor Flats Rd.

Glade North Rd.

Alder Rd Birch Rd.W. Sagemoor Rd.

Cedar Dogwood Elm Rd.West Fir Rd.Eltopia Rd.

Fir Rd.Fir Way Glenwood Glenwood Auburn Rd.

N. Belleview Rd.N. Belleview Rd.N. Coulee Rd.

Cooton Ironwood Rd.

W. Juniper Rd.Russell Rd.

W. Klamath Rd.

Sheffield Rd.

Juniper Rd.Olympia Dr.

Glade North Rd.

Ash R 170 Harrington VanGiesonGeorge Washinton Way N. Rd 68 W. Sagemoor Rd.

Stevens Country Christian Country Haven Edwin Markum Big River COLD CREEK VALLEY H A N F O R D R E S E R V A T I O N YAKIMA RIVER Iowa Flats N Power Plant Loop Columbia Generating Station Kinder-Care KiBe woodScale in Miles 10 5 0 5 5 MILES20 MILES FFTF Canal10 MILES Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report Hepner JunctionPin e C reek pit pit Sandpit Eltopia Ranch Water Tank Water Tank 17 260 260 26 261 260 Gravel pit 17 Five Corners 395 395 Hathaway 800 Pent 884 Watson 1349Baumann Farm 1600 Othello 1145 Basin City 770 170 Ranch Savage Island Basin City Ranch Ranch Lower Monumental DamPleasant View Farm FIELDS GULCH Ayer Ranch PALOUSE FALLS RECREATION AREA Farm Harder DUNNIGAN COULEE Davin Skookum Can 261 Grain Elevator Grain Elevator Old RR grade Connell Connell City 925 Grain Elevator WASHTUCNA COULEE Rattlesnake Can COULEE HARDESTY Michigan P ra irie Washtucna Kahlotus SAND HILLS COULEE Hatton HATTON C OULEE ENE E R A T T L E S N A K E F L A TCunningham Canyon PROVIDENCE COULEEPipeline Grain Elevator Cunningham Frischnecht Shano Bruce BURLINGTO NNORTHER N Radio Tower Radio Tower Mesa Devils Canyon SMITH CANYON OLD MAID COULE E Water Tank Othello Air Force Sta Cactus OthelloEL E CT RIFIE D Taunton Saddle Gap Potholes East Canal US Governm ent RR Ranch BURLINGTON NORTHERN UNION PACIFIC Lower Monumental 813Farrington pit Scott Magallon Mathews Corner RINGOLD FLAT Fisher Ranch 1521 10 MI 20 MI 30 MI 40 MI 50 MI 260 Rattlesnake Lake Camp Lake Scooteney Reservoir T Lake WASHTUCNA COULEE Clark Pond Lake Kahlotus Sulfur Lake P A R A D I S E F L A T S Low Canal Eagle Lakes Dry Lake ESE Prescott Harsha Lamar Eurica Grain elevator Grain elevator ElwoodClyde Grain elevator Hatch Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Hadley Walker Page Valley Grove Ennis Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Whitman Station Substa Substa College Place WALLA WALLA Lowden Touchet Martin Slater Pipeline 12 395 Zanger Junction Reese Climax Siding Grain elevator SURVIVAL TRAINING AREA JUNIPER FOREST Water Tank Gravel pit Gravel pit Redd Levey Water Tank Grain elevator Grain elevator JOHNSON BUTTE The Butte Radio Tower Radio Tower Wallula Water Tank Humorist MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Nine Mile Canyon Compressor Station 540 Snake River 12 Quarry Walker Canyon RYE GRASS FLATEEL U OC SSARG EYR Water Tank Quarry 124 Lake Sacajawea Gravel pit Glade Pasco Substa Substa Ice Harbor Dam JACKASS MOUNTAIN Water Tank Wooded Island Taylor Flat ESQUATZEL COULEE Diversion Channel Esquatzel Richland Pasco West Vista 521 Columbia Point Tri-Cities Airport 407 Potholes Canal WTPipeline Dry Hollow E U R E K A F L A T Winnett Canyon Winnett Canyon Badger Hollow Badger Hollow Gravel pitBURLINGTON NORTH ERNBUR LINGTO N N ORT HER N SPRING VALLEYWebber Canyon W oodward C anyon Burbank Finley Nine Canyon 395 Sacajawea State Park WT SNAKE RIVER L A K E W A L L U L A UNION PACIFICUNION PA CIFIC Hedges WT Substa Grain elevator Gravel pit Radio Towers Radio Tower Grain elevator Williams Wells Amon Well Young Wells Coyote Spring 14 Bowden Springs Bofer Canyon Taylor Canyon Four Canyon Straub Canyon Vista Cress Wells Columbia Canal KENNEWICKFranklin Co Irr Can N ORTHERNBURLING T O N NO RTHERN C olumbia CanalBAD G E R M O U N TA IN Canal Switzler CanyonPipeline HORSE HEAVEN HILLS D ry Creek Walla Walla River WHITMAN MISSIONNHSWalla Walla R iver Island View Richland 391 124 260 McNary Dam L A K E W A L L U L A WASHINGTON OREGON SE S Gardena Windmill Big Well Cold Springs Reservoir Hunt DitchGreasewood Creek Pine Dry Cr Burling a m e D itc h To P endleton 395 730 730 Pendleton 1493 30 84 Umatilla River 207 32 SSE 37 Milton-Freewater Walla Walla Valley Umapine Walla Walla River Skyranch 850 Page 850 204 Weston Athena 11 11 Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator WT WT Bowlus Hill Grain elevator Oregon Sky Ranch 357 Grain elevator Holdman WT NORTH FORK JUNIPER CANYON NORTH FORK COLD SPRING S CANY O N SO UTH F O RK JUNIPER CAN YON MIDDLE FORK COLD SPRINGS CANYON SOUTH FORK COLD SPRINGS CANYON COLD SPRINGS CANYON DESPAIN GULCH S T A GE G ULCH JUNIPER CANYONRUSH CA NYON Switzler Canyon Tank BURLINGTON NORTHERN WARM SPRINGS CANYON VA NSYCLE C ANYO N ST AGE GULCH MISSOURI GULCH Grain elevator 37 FOURMILE GAP Echo HAT ROCK STATE PARK UMATILLA BUTTE Hermiston State Stanfield Hinkle SILLUSI BUTTE HERMISTON BUTTE Hermiston McNary Power City Substation HERMISTON BUTTEUNION PACIFIC 207 COLD SPRINGS NWR 84 221 SSW 14 14 BOARDMAN BOMBING RANGE 730 SCALE 20 Statute Miles 15 10 5 0 5 30 Kilometers 25 15 10 5 0 5 20LAKE UMATILLAUMATILLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COLUMBIA RIVER Hepner Junction GOLGOTHA BUTTE 84 CANOE RIDGE ALDER RIDGE ALDER RIDGE Windmill Windmill Boardman 390 PATERSON DEAD CANYON TULE CANYON Rattlesnake Spring Ranch Ranch Ordnance Water tower Umatilla Army Depot RIDGE UMATILLA ORDNANCE DEPOT Westland West Extension Irrigation Canal Disposal Plant Irrigon UNION PACIFIC Water Tower BURLINGTON Paterson FOURMILE CANYON WARD BUTTE FINLEY BUTTES BING CANYON East Branch Glade Creek COYOTE COULEE Boardman Coyote Canyon SAND RIDGE Windmill Ranch Windmill Ranch Cemetery Cleveland Bickleton Cemetery STEGEMAN CANYON SW BIG HORN CANYON WOOD GULCH DOUTY CANYON Ald er C reek Pine Creek SPRING CANYON Crow Butte 221 Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Gravel pit 240 224 241 223 22 22 Ranch H O R S E H E A V E N H I L L S Cem Ranch Grain elevator Ranch Grain elevator Ranch Radio Tower Gravel pit Gravel pit Ranch Grain elevator Carter Canyon Grain elev Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Grain elevator Ranch Badger Canyon Badger Candy Mtn.

Fast Flux Test Facility RATTLESNAKE HILLS Water Tank Water Tanks Kelly Gulch Horn Rapids Dam WT Corral Canyon WT Radio Tower Observatory Pumping Station McWhorter 1356 West Richland Iowa FlatsRED M OUNTAIN Goose Hill UNION PACIFIC Benton City BURLINGTON Gibbon Whitstrand Chandler Butte Sunnyside Canal Chaffee Pumping Station Ranch Ranch Roza Canal YAKIM A RIVER UNION PACIFIC HORSE HEAVEN HILLS Prosser 694 GRANDVIEW BUTTE Pumping Station Sunnyside 764 Lichty Sunnyside Bryon Ranch Pumping Station Pumping Station Toppenish Buena Outlook Emerald Granger Giffen Lake TOPPENISH NWR WSW Yakima I R Hdqrs NO RT H ERN BUR LING T ON Granger Farm

Labor Camp Pumping Station TOPPENISH NWR SNIPES MOUNTAIN BURLIN GTON HEMBRE MTN Satus Mabton WT Cem Pumping Station Sulfur Spring Water Tanks Radio Tower Liberty Oleys Lake Grange Mabton West Canal Yakima Indian Reservation Grain elevator Bluelight Windmill Grain elevator Radio Station Radio Tower Moore Canyon Coyote Canyon Gravel pit Prosser pit 97 97 Lozier Springs Campbell Spring Maiden Spring Spring Webber Canyon Mabton Siphon Toppenish Creek Toppenish C reekWapity Slough Satus No. 2 Pump Canal Sunnyside Canal Zillah Roza Canal Sulfur Cr Black CanyonSpring Cr Snipes Creek Water 410 PipelineEast Branch Glade Cr McKinley Spring Glade Creek Glade C re ek WNW W 24 24 243 24 Ranch Ranch Range Central Cem Observation post Badger Gap Squaw Tit Firing Center AAF Y A K I M A R I D G E U M T A N U M R I D G E Y A K I M A F I R I N G C E N T E R SADD LE MOUNT A IN S SADDLE MOUNTAINS CORRAL CANYON SOURDOUGH CA NYO N ALKALI CANYON SADDLE MOUNTAINS NW N NE W A H L U K E S L O P E Ranch Priest Rapids Dam Mattawa Christensen Bros 840 SMYRNA BENCH CNWR CNWR CNWR Beverly Ranch WAHATIS PEAK Mattawa 750 Desert 570 Corfu Ranch ROYAL SLOPE Water Tank CNWR CNWR CNWR Schwana White Bluffs SADDLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CABLE BUTTE Hanford CABLE MOUNTAIN Coyote Rapids Lower Crab Creek WT CNWR Cold Creek Hanford Ditch Towers Ranch Ranch Water TankCOLD CREE K VA LLEY Benson Spring Locke Island Dry Cr Horsethief Pt Cairn Hope Peak Emerson Nipple Substa H A N F O R D R E S E R V A T I O N Wapato Sawyer Donald Pumping station ELEPHANT MOUNTAIN HILLS ZILLAH PEAK M OXEE VA LLEY Moxee City RATTLESNAKE HILLS Ranch Tower Plant Quarantine Station BLAC K ROCK VALLEY Ranch Ranch Cem High Top R A T T L E S N A K E H I L L S R A T T L E S N A K E H I L L S Radio Facility KITTITAS CANYONMoxee Canal Moxee Canal Selah Creek Hanson Creek McDonald Springs Cottonwood Creek Black Rock Spring Sentinel GapSentinel Bluffs ELECTRIFIED Smyrna SENTINEL MOUNTAIN Cem Priest Rapids Lake NNW SAND DUNES WHISKEY DICK MTN ROCKY COULEE S PRING GULCH Caribou Creek RYEGRASS COULEE PARK MIDDLE CANYON HULT BUTTEJOHNSON CANYON BOYLSTON MOUNTAINS Rock Spring Poison Spring Lone Star Spring RYEGRASS MOUNTAIN Wippe Pumping Station Badger C r Fire station Kittitas Microwave Tower SCHNEBLY COULEE F R E N C H M A N H I L L S Winchester Wasteway Moses Lake Sky Ranch 1100 George SAND HILLS Potholes State Park THE POTHOLES 10 Mae 10 Ranch 90 90 26 CNWR Christensen 1150 F R E N C H M A N H I L L S Cem Camp Royal City NATURAL CORRAL LARSON AFB IMPACT AREA Red Rock Coulee CNWR W est Canal Frenchman Hills Lake Royal Lake Wanapum Dam CNWR Frenchman Springs POTHOLES COULEE BABCOCK BENCH LAVA GINKGO PETRIFIED FOREST PARK Sand Hollow BABCOCK RIDGE Stan Coffin Lake CRESCENT BAR CRESCENT BAR 281 283 Brushy Creek Leslie Creek Skookumchuck Creek Johnson Cr Boylston BADGER POCKET East Kittitas Airway BeaconTrail Creek North Branch Canal Beacon HIAWATHA VALLEY SAND DUNES 17 17 10 90 Larson Air Force Base 1186 Moses Lake POTHOLES RESERVOIR Moses Lake 1200 21 21 261 261 Ritzville Ritzville 1800 21 395 NNE Lind Dewald 1880 Warden Water Franz Ranch Schrag Station Laing Station Refinery Wheeler Raugust Station Windmill LIND COULEE Radio Tower Dryland Experiment Providence Grain elevators Grain elevators Lind 1491 Servia LIND COULEE BOWERS COULEE LIND CO ULEE Pipeline New Warden 1265 Grain elevator Gravel pit Pipeline NORTHERN PACIFIC Underground aqueduct CHICAGO MILWAUKEE ST PAUL AND PACIFIC FARRIER COULEE Windmill WindmillPAHA COU LEE Paha NORTHERN PACIFIC 10 90 Ralston McElroy Lake Pizarro Grain elev ROCKY COULEE Underground aqueduct Lewis Horn Pelican Horn LIND CO ULEE Bassett Junction McDonald Siding Windmill Tiflis Ritell Siding NORTHERN PACIFICCHICAGO MILWAUKEE S T PAUL AND PACIFIC Rocky Coule e WastewayO'Sullivan Dam Sielen Siding Upper Goose Lake JACKASS MOUNTAIN Parker Horn Soda Lake COLUMBIA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Goose Lake Shiner Lake Morgan Lake Taggars 1149 Kent Farms 1155 Beatrice Gravel pit Roxboro WEBER COULEE Meter Station Hillcrest Ruff KITTITAS CO GRANT CO ADAMS CO BENTON CO FRANKLIN CO YAKIMA CO KLICKITAT CO WALLA WALLA CO UMATILLA CO MORROW CO Railroad Pipeline Powerline Medium Duty Road Light Duty Road Heavy Duty Road LEGEND 395 260 Landplane Airport Landing Area Federal Route Marker State Route Interstate Route 80N Park or Reservation Boundary Sandpit or Gravelpit Populated Places Radio Tower, Well Latitude/Longitude 82 Plymouth 82 12 82 82 12 Cem Grandview Dam North Prosser 82BURLIN G TON 12 12 82 Kiona Gravel pit 182 182 12 Chandler Columbia Generating Station 50 Mile Ingestion Exposure Emergency Planning Zone N Island View Sacajawea State Park Sixprong Creek Sudbury 930114.50 Mi Aug 1998 Route 4 South Route 4 South Route 11A Basin Hill Rd.

Hollingsworth Rd.

Bellflower Rd.

Columbia Rd.

Mountain Vista Rd Route 10 South Route 2 South Horn Rapids Rd.

Stevens Dr.

Selph Landing Rd.

Taylor Flats Rd.

Glade North Rd.

Alder Rd Birch Rd.W. Sagemoor Rd.

Cedar Dogwood Elm Rd.West Fir Rd.

Eltopia Rd.

Fir Rd.Fir Way Glenwood Glenwood Auburn Rd.

N. Belleview Rd.N. Belleview Rd.N. Coulee Rd.

Cootonwood Ironwood Rd.

W. Juniper Rd.

Russell Rd.

W. Klamath Rd.

Sheffield Rd.

Juniper Rd.

Olympia Dr.

Glade North Rd.

Ash R 170 Harrington VanGieson George Washinton Way N. Rd 68 W. Sagemoor Rd.

46°00'46°30'46°45'46°15'45°45'47°00'Longitude Latitude 46°00'46°30'46°45'46°15'45°45'47°00'Latitude Longitude 119°00'118°45'118°30'119°30'120°00'119°45'119°15'120°15'119°00'118°45'118°30'119°30'120°00'119°45'119°15'120°15'12 395 395 395 395 30 30 Project Area Map - 50 Mile Radius 990306.50 2.1-5 Form No. 960690 Amendment 55 May 2001 Figure Draw. No.Rev.Columbia Generating Station Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report 2000 Population in Communities Around Site 970187.14 2.1-6 Figure Amendment 57December 2003 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Ephrata (6,808)Quincy (5,044)Royal City

(1,823)Moses Lake

(14,953)Odessa (957)Ritzville (1,736)Lind (582)Mesa (425)Connell (2,956)Kahlotus (214)Dayton (2,655)Prescott (314)Waitsburg (1,212)Walla Walla

(29,686)College Place

(7,818)Milton Freewater

(6,470)Stanfield (1,979)Boardman (2,855)Hermiston (13,154)Union Gap (5,621)Wapato (4,582)Toppenish (8,946)Granger (2,530)Yakima (71,845)

Moxee (821)

Zillah (2,198)

Mabton (1,891)Prosser (4,838)Benton City

(2,624)Columbia Generating

Station Irrigon (1,702)Umatilla (4,978)Pendleton (16,354)

Scale01020304050 Miles Columbia RiverYakima River Snake River Columbia River Ellensburg (15,414)

Morrow KlickitatYakima Kittitas Grant Adams FranklinWalla Walla Umatilla Benton Richland (38,708)West Richland

(8,385)Kennewick (54,751)George (528)Selah (6,310)

Mattawa (2,609)

Othello (5,847)Warden (2,544)Sunnyside (13,905)

Grandview (8,377)Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report LDCN-03-023 Pasco (32,066)

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 60 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2009 LDCN-08-035 2.2-1 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES

This section describes the industr ial, transportation, and military installations and operations in the vicinity of the site which may have a potential effect on the safe operation of Columbia Generating Station (CGS).

2.2.1 LOCATION

AND ROUTES

There are no military bases, missile sites, manufacturing plants, chemical plants, commercial chemical storage facilities, or ai rports within a 5-mile radius of the site. A security barrier completely surrounds the sta tion and its major supporting facilities to keep unauthorized vehicles a safe distance from critical structures.

According to the Richland Operations Offi ce of the Department of Energy (DOE) (Reference 2.2-1), there are no plans for petrochemical storage facilities, airports, oil and gas pipelines, or petrochemical tank farms on the Hanford Site. Plan s for modifications to or new radiological material treatment or storage facilities are discussed in Section 2.2.2.

As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the following facilities are located at or near the CGS site:

Energy Northwest Plant Engineering Center, H. J. Ashe Substation, DOE Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), WNP-1 and WNP-4 sites, DOE 618-11 (Wye) radioactive waste burial ground, Permanent meteorological tower, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), and Hydrogen Storage and Supply Facility.

Other facilities that are located within a 5-mile radi us of the site include:

The Plant Support Facility/Emergency Opera tion Facility which is located 0.75 miles southwest of CGS on Ener gy Northwest property, The Benton Substation which is located 3 miles east-southeast of CGS on DOE property, The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wa ve Observatory (LIGO) which is located approximately 3.3 mile s west-southwest of CGS on DOE property, and

The DOE 618-10 (300 North) radioactive waste burial ground which is located approximately 3.5 miles sout h of CGS on DOE property.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDCN-01-055,03-023 2.2-2 Transportation needs of CGS can be met by exis ting barge, rail, and highway facilities.

Barges of up to 3000 tons cap acity can be accommodated on th e Columbia River within the Hanford Site. A barge unloading facility 9 miles south of the plant was used for delivery of large construction items for the DOE FFTF and Energy Northwest nuclear projects. These materials were transported by truck or rail to the construction sites from the Port of Benton landing.

The CGS site is serviced by a tw o-lane paved access road connected to Hanford Site Route 4, which is a paved four-lane major artery located 1.

6 miles west of the station. Route 4 is part of the DOE road system. The DOE-owned road system connects the area s of the Hanford Site with paved two-lane and four-lane primary ro ads, secondary gravel roads, and unimproved roads. State Highway 240 traverses the Hanford Site from the southeast to the northwest. The highway passes within about 7 miles of CGS in the southwest quadrant. The highway connects into State Highway 24, which goes west to Yakima, Washington, and across the Vernita Bridge on the Columbia River 22 miles to the northwest (see Figure 2.2-1

).

The Hanford Site (DOE) railroad system (see Figure 2.2-2) connects with commercial rail systems in Richland and Kennewick, Washington. Railroad operations th at pass through CGS property are restricted to only those trains that have been authorized by Energy Northwest Security. The rail line is physically blocked at the two points where the plant vehicle barrier crosses the tracks.

Heavy barge traffic north of the Port of Benton doc k is not feasible because the river channel is too shallow and the current is too swift. The environmental impact and economic cost of

constructing a new barge slip at some upstream location a nd channeling the river cannot presently be justified with the availability of land transporta tion between the Port of Benton facility and the Hanford Site.

Making the Columbia River navigable for barges from north of Richland to Wenatchee would result in barge traffic past the CGS site at River Mile 352. However, this situation would not likely occur. Locks or other lift facilities would have to be constructed at the Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and Rock Island Dams. Furthermore, in 2000, a presidential executive order created the Hanford Reach National Monument, protecting the 51-mile Hanford Reach of the Columbia River (Reference 2.2-2). The protected area includes a 1/4-mile-wide corridor on the west side of the river in the vicinity of CGS.

Airports, military facilities, low-level Federal airways, and airport instrument approaches in the vicinity of CGS ar e discussed in Section 3.5.1.6 and shown in Figure 2.2-3.

An explosives and ordinance test site operated by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory approximately 13 miles northwest of the site was abandoned in mid-1975 (Reference 2.2-3). Explosives for operations such as quarrying or seismic studies on the Hanford Site are brought to the blasting site as needed and unused quantities are removed.

Normally the only explosives C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 LDCN-05-011 2.2-3 stored on the Hanford Site are small arms ammunition for use by the security patrols. A small arms firing range used for training by the DOE security patrol is located 8 miles due south of the plant (Reference 2.2-3). Another range, used by Energy No rthwest security personnel, is located 1.5 miles east-nor theast of CGS on Energy Northwest lease property.

2.

2.2 DESCRIPTION

S

2.2.2.1 Description of Facilities Energy Northwest's Plant Engineering Center is located west of the CGS turbine generator building as shown in Figure 1.2-1. It is a two-story, 100,000 ft 2 facility designed to house approximately 470 CGS pl ant staff personnel.

The H. J. Ashe Substation is located approxim ately 0.5 mile north of CGS and is operated by the Bonneville Power Administration as part of its transmission system.

The Energy Northwest permanent meteorological tower is located less than 0.5 mile west of the plant site. The tower is automated so that the only personnel at the tower are those required to make adjustments to the instruments or to perform repairs to the system. There are no permanent personnel at the facility.

The ISFSI is located immediately north-northwest of the plant. Confinement of all radioactive materials at the ISFSI is provided by the required use of NRC certified spent fuel storage casks listed in 10 CFR 72.214. The ISFSI storage cask system consists of an inner stainless steel multi-purpose canister (MPC) and an outer st orage overpack. The MPC contains the spent fuel. It is a welded pressure vessel with no bolted closure or mechanical seals. Primary closure welds are examined and leakage tested to ensure thei r integrity. The MPC redundant closures are designed to maintain confinement integrity during normal conditions of storage, and off-normal and postula ted accident conditions. The outer storage overpack is fabricated from concrete and structural st eel components that are classifi ed as important to safety.

A fully loaded spent fuel storag e cask weighs approximately 185 tons. The spen t fuel loaded storage casks are located within the Energy Northwest ISFSI protected area which is surrounded by a fence and topped with barbed wire. The ISFSI access gates are locked except when in use.

The Hydrogen Storage and Supply F acility is located 0.6 miles south-southeast of the plant site. The facility is part of a hydrogen water chemistr y system to prevent and mitigate intergranular stress corrosion cracking in reactor internal struct ures and piping welds. The facility consists of a fenced gravel yard with concrete pads constructed to accommodate a liquid hydrogen tank, nitrogen tank, gaseous hydrogen tubes, and all supporting piping and equipment necessary to supply CGS with gaseous hydrogen. The liquid and compressed gases are delivered to the facility by truck.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 60 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2009 LDCN-09-026 2.2-4 Within the exclusion area radi us of 1950 m is Energy Northw est's 1250-MWe WNP-1 project.

Construction of the PWR plant, located 1500 m (4925 ft) east-southeast of CGS, was suspended in April 1982. In May 1994 the En ergy Northwest Board of Directors voted to terminate WNP-1. The c onstruction of twin unit WN P-4, located 1250 m (4100 ft) east-northeast of CGS, was terminated in January 1982. These projects have a separate access road that ties into the Hanford Site Route 4, 1.6 miles south of the CGS access road. Support

activities at either the WNP-1 or WNP-4 sites do not interf ere with operation of CGS. These may include activities associated with site restoration and economic development (such as leasing of excess facilities for office space and manufacturing). Within the exclusion area, Energy Northwest has the authority to determ ine all activities with in the meaning of 10 CFR 100.3(a), including the authority to remove all personnel and property from the area.

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is located approximately

3.3 miles

west-southwest from the pl ant site. The mission of this re search facility is to observe gravitational waves of cosmic origin. The facility houses laser interferometers, consisting of mirrors suspended at each of the corners of an L-shaped vacuum system measuring 2.5 miles on a side. The materials and activities at this facility do not impact the operation of CGS.

The Umatilla Chemical Depot (UMCD), formerly known as Uma tilla Army Depot, is located in northeastern Oregon in parts of Umatilla and Morrow Counties approximately 43 miles south of CGS. In 1962, the UMCD began stori ng chemical weapons and stored approximately 12% (3717 tons) of the nation's original chemi cal weapons. The weapons consisted of various munitions and ton containers containing GB (Sarin), VX, or HD (Mustard) agents. Beginning in 1990, the UMCD shipped all conventional ammunition and supplies to other installations and only chemical weapons remained pending disposal.

The Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility was completed in 2001 and uses high temperat ure incineration to destroy the weapons. The Army began weapons disposal in 2004 and has destroye d all GB and VX nerve agent chemical weapons. In June, 2009, the Army began the HD blister agent disposal campaign which is expected to take between one and two years to complete. Upon completion, the facility will be dismantled and the UMCD will be closed.

As discussed in Section 2.1.1 and shown in Figure 2.1-1, CGS is located on the DOE Hanford Site. In reviewing the plant si te and the vicinity for potential external hazards or hazardous material, the Hanford facilities currently operating, recently operating, or with the potential for operating were screened. The facilities discus sed below are those believed to pose the most risk to the safe operations of CGS. The safety analysis reports and accident analysis prepared for those facilities were review ed to determine possible hazards. No accidents evaluated present a physical challenge to the CGS buildings. Releases with the potential to impact the operation of CGS were ra dioactive particulate that would be effectively mitigated within General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 limits by the c ontrol room high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. Considered but not included were the 200 East Burial Grounds, the Critical Mass Laboratory, the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility, and the Effluent Treatment Facility in the 200 East Area. In the 200 We st Area, the T Plant, U Plan t, Reduction-Oxidation Plant, C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-11-027 2.2-5 and the 222-S Laboratory were cons idered but not included. Th ese facilities have insufficient radiological or toxicological inventories in a dispersible form to represent a risk to CGS operation. The specific facilities included are discussed in Table 2.2-1.

Three DOE facilities are located with in a 5-mile radius of the plant site. These are the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and two radioactiv e waste burial grounds. The specific hazards associated with these facilities are summarized in Table 2.2-1 and the specific activities are listed below:

The FFTF is a deactivated sodium cooled breeder reactor located approximately 3 miles southwest of CGS. All fuel has been removed and shipped to the Idaho National Laboratory. All sodium has been removed, solidified, and is stored on-site. The facility has been placed in a long-term, low-cost surveillance and maintenance condition.

The 618-10 (300 North) Waste Burial Ground is approximately 3.5 miles south of CGS. DOE has initiated trench remediation ac tivities at the site. Trench remediation is expected to take 18 months (1/2013).

The 618-11 (Wye) Waste Burial Ground is dir ectly west of CGS, outside of Energy Northwest leased land, but within its 1950-m eter exclusion area radius and security perimeter. The site received low- to high-activity waste, fission products, some plutonium-contaminated waste, and non-radiological hazardous waste from March 1962 to December 1967 from the Hanford 300 Area.

The waste is buried in 3 trenches, 50 Vertical Pipe Units (VPUs), and four caissons. The site was covered with an overburden of soil when it was closed.

The surface was stabilized in 1982 with an additional 2 ft of soil. Since surface stabilization, activities at the site have been limited

to monitoring and surveillance. DOE completed non-intrusive surveillance and characterization activities at the site in 2011 to obtain data information and information for planning remediation activities.

The DOE 300, 200 East, and 200 West Areas are locat ed within a 10-mile radius of the site.

The current waste management activities (storage , disposal, and treatment) conducted in these areas are discussed in Table 2.2-1. The 300 Area is approximately 7 miles southeast of CGS.

The only hazard presented to CGS from this site is from the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive material stored there. There is an unknown quantity of miscellaneous reactor fuel material in the 300 Area. This quantity is not publicly available information.

The DOE 200 East and 200 West Areas are appr oximately 10 miles northwest of CGS.

Originally these facilities were constructed to support the extraction of weapons grade plutonium for the defense program. However, as the Hanford mission has changed from production to environmental cleanup, so has th e purpose of the facilities discussed. This C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-6 change in mission has, in some cases, resulted in a change in the hazards presented to CGS plant site and personnel.

A private (non-DOE) low-level radioactive waste disposal area is adjacent to 200 East Area.

There are also plans to build private waste vitrification fac ilities adjacent to 200 East. These facilities are also discussed in Table 2.2-1.

Several plutonium production reactor facilities are located approximately 20 miles north-northwest of CGS. All of the reactors were water cooled, graphite moderated. The last operating reactor, the N Reactor, was permanently shut down in 1991. The N Reactor also provided steam for the Energy Northwest Hanfor d Generating Station until 1987. The fuel has been removed from the reactors fo r storage or treatment. The cu rrent activities at these reactor sites are also discussed in Table 2.2-1.

The nearest petroleum product storage tanks ar e located 22 miles southeast of the site:

approximately 23 million gal capacity at the Chevron Pipeline Company and approximately 20 million gal capacity at the Tidewater Barge Lines.

2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials

The existing Hanford Site railroad track (o wned by the DOE and operated by a private contractor in support of the Hanford Operati ons), and the CGS, the WNP-1, WNP-4, and the FFTF railroad spurs all run within the exclusion area of the plant site. Shipments of large quantities of hazardous materials on this track th at existed during initial licensing of CGS are no longer made (Reference 2.2-4).

The DOE has no plans for railroad shipments of e xplosives in the foreseeable future. However the DOE's Richland Operations Office has ag reed to notify Energy Northwest prior to transporting any explosive shipments of more than 1800 lb past CGS (Reference 2.2-5). Energy Northwest will provide an analysis to th e NRC of the potential consequences prior to the start of such shipping (Reference 2.2-6).

Hazardous material is also transported on Hanf ord Route 4 by DOE. Chlorine is the only material of concern transported on Route 4 w ith the potential for impacting CGS operation.

Section 6.4.4.2.1 provides additional information on cont rol room habitability assessments for CGS.

The Yakima Training Center, a sub-installation of Fort Lewis, is 30 miles northwest of the site. The center consists of 327,000 acres. Th e center provides training facilities and logistical support and it is used for firing of all types of ordnance, both in a direct mode and by indirect artillery and mortars. Weapons to 155mm are fired. This type firing occurs frequently. Other

types of live ordnance use at the center include aerial delivery by high perf ormance aircraft of ordnance to include 2,000-lb bombs, helicopter weapons which include automatic weapons and

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-7 2.75-in. folding fin rockets, and anti-aircraft mi ssiles. These latter activities are significant as to occurrence. The majority of the ordnance impacts a 20,000-acre area which is generally located in the central portion of the center. All activities are confined to the geographical limits of the center and/or its restricted air space unless special arrangements are made with affected agencies. Mechanized units (i.e., tanks and armored personnel carriers) from Fort Lewis and reserve components conduct extensiv e maneuvers on all accessible areas of the Training Center and use specially designed ranges to practice fi ring their weapons. Infantry and engineer units that support the mechanized un its also train at the center. Training activity is greatest from March to November. War games sometimes involve troop and equipment deployment at the Richland Airport and al ong Highway 243 west of Vernita Bridge.

Helicopters may fly near the Hanford Site, or military vehicles may travel over Highway 240 (Reference 2.2-7).

2.2.2.3 Pipelines

There are no commercial oil or gas pipelines in th e vicinity of CGS. The nearest major natural gas transmission pipeline to the site is about 12 miles. A 20-in. gas transmission line of the Northwest Pipeline Corporation is located east and essentially paralle l to U.S. Highway 395 between Pasco and Ritzville, Washington. A second pipeline system consisting of parallel

36-in. and 42-in. lines, owned by Pacific Gas Transmission Company, passes through Wallula, approximately 24 miles from the site (Reference 2.2-8). These distances eliminate any potential hazard to plant operations due to a na tural gas fire or explosion. The Energy Northwest Hydrogen Storage and Supply Facility is located 0.6 miles south-southeast of the plant and is connected to the plant with a 2-in NPS gas pipeline. The pipeline runs north from the facility approximately 400 ft east of the plan t and then turns and r uns west approximately 400 feet north of the plant then south approximate ly 200 ft west of the plant to its connection point on the west side of the Turbine Building.

Fire and explosion risk s to the plant involving this pipeline are discussed in Appendix F and Section 3.5.1.5.

2.2.2.4 Waterways

Makeup water inlet structures are located in the Columbia River 315 ft from the shoreline at low river flow (36,000 cfs; el.

341.73 ft) at river mile 351.75.

A significant amount of Columbia River barge tr affic moves as far upstream as the Ports of Pasco and Kennewick. Also, a docking facility established by the Port of Benton in North Richland (approximately 9 miles downstream of the CGS site) is accessible by barges with a maximum 16 ft of draft (normally 2500 to 3000 tons

). The first use of this facility was in April 1973 when the FFTF reactor vessel was off-l oaded. Traffic to the North Richland dock is very infrequent in comparison to that in Pasco and Kennewick due to the lack of large industrial concerns in the region between Richla nd and Priest Rapids Da

m. This facility is most often used to off-load dismantled nuclear co mponents. On several occasions in the past, C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-8 lightly loaded barges have transported material to the vicinity of the Hanford Site. This required maintenance of an ade quate flow from Priest Rapids Dam during the transit period.

2.2.2.5 Airports

Three commercial airports are w ithin 20 miles of CGS. The closest is Richland Airport 11 miles south of the plant. This general avia tion airport has two 4000-ft runways, one with a 010/190 orientation and the other with a 070/250 orientation. Visual flight rule landings are standard for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) non-control-tower airports.

The Tri-Cities Airport 17 miles southeast near Pa sco is the largest airport within 40 miles. The FAA operates the air traffic tower and airport radar approval control facility. The airport has two 7700-ft crossing runways with 120/300 and 030/210 orientations. The latter has a 4430-ft parallel runway. Runway 30 has a very high frequency omnira nge (VOR) instrument approach and Runway 21R has an instrument la nding system and is an instrument approach runway.

The Vista Airport operated by the Port of Kenne wick is a general aviation airport located 18 miles south-southeast. It has a 4000-ft runway with a 20/200 orientation. All operations are under visual flight rules.

Information relative to the flight paths and ac tivity at these three co mmercial airports, the Yakima Training Center, and the nearby priv ate airstrips is discussed in Section 3.5.1.6.

2.2.2.6 Projection of Industrial Growth

There is no projected growth of waterway tra ffic nor plans for oil and gas pipelines within 10 miles of CGS.

2.2.3 EVALUATION

OF POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS

2.2.3.1 Determination of Design Basis Events

Energy Northwest has investigated the resistance of plant structures to explosions. The reactor building is a reinforced-concrete structure up to the refueling floor and is designed to withstand the worst probable combination of wind velocity and associated pressure drop due to a design basis tornado. A differential pressure of 3 psi between the exteri or and interior of the building is also considered in the design. At its near est point, the railroad is 510 ft from the reactor building.

From the above criteria, it has been determined th at the reactor building can resist an explosion of 20,000 lb of dynamite on a railway car 510 ft from the reactor building. The performance of the reactor building structure for this blast loading condition will be similar to that for the

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-9 original design basis tornado loading condition ba sed on the 3 psi differential pressure used in the original tornado analysis.

In the unlikely event of an explosion or fi re on the railroad affec ting the 115-kV shutdown power supply, the 230-kV power supply or the di esel generators would fulfill that function.

It is extremely unlikely that an explosion or fire on the mainline railroad would compromise

the safe shutdown of the facility. As noted in Section 2.2.2.2 , DOE has no plans to ship explosives on the railroad, and the agency will notify Energy Northwest prior to the shipment of explosives in a quantity greater than 1800 lb. Energy Northwest Security controls access to the rails that pass near the plant. The only explosives on the Hanford Site are small arms munitions. As described in Section 2.2.2.2 , this represents no hazard to the operation of CGS.

The Yakima Training Center does not endanger the site. Hydrogen gas stored in the gas bottle storage building and in a trailer parked adjacent to the gas bottle storage building will not pose

any fire or explosion problem because of the light weight properties and dispersal qualities of the gas and the distances (approximately 400 ft) between the storage areas and any safety-related equipment. Hydrogen gas stor ed at the Hydrogen Storage and Supply Facility (HSSF) and transported to the plant by pipeline does not pose a significant fire or explosion risk to the plant as discussed in Appendix F and Section 3.5.1.5. Habitability considerations for the control room and quantities of hydrogen ga s stored in/adjacent to the gas bottle storage building and at the HSSF are discussed in Section 6.4.4.2.3.

Table 2.2-1 summarizes the potential events at the Hanford Site facilities that could present a radiological or chemical hazard or hazardous situa tion to the continued sa fe operation of CGS.

The cesium and strontium capsule s stored at the Waste Encap sulation and Storage Facility (WESF), the fuel stored at the K Basins, and the high level waste stored in the tank farms present contributions to risk at CGS due to presence of 137 Cs, 90 Sr, and 241 Am. However, based on consideration of the radionuclid e inventory at risk, the ability to transport this inventory, and the proximity of the storage facility, the ri sk is dominated by the inventory stored at WESF. The probability of the loss of cooling in the capsule storage pool is extremely low, but the potential dose to unprotected CGS personnel due to the release is significant. Any required evacuations would be performe d as discussed in the Emergency Plan. The design basis

accident at WESF would not result in a conditi on at CGS which would challenge the criteria established in 10 CFR 100.

In each event evaluated, the radiological dose resulting from particulate releases would be adequately filtered by the control room HEPA filters, mitigating any challenge to the habitability of the control room. None of th e facilities present a chemical exposure risk to CGS. Radiological exposures fo r postulated events on the Hanfor d Site are characterized by the contribution from gaseous radionuclides because of the short half-life of 131 I and because the other noble gases were released during the spent fuel processing.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-10 The Yakima Training Center, discussed in Section 2.2.2.2 , is used for military maneuvers and weapons training and is the only significant military activity in the vicinity of the Hanford Site.

The only weapon currently in use at the Yakima Training Center known to present a hazard to the Hanford Site is the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). With a range in excess of 25 miles, the MLRS could potentially impact the CGS site. However, the MLRS is only fired from the perimeter of the Yakima Training Center into a centrally located impact zone and is only fired with dummy warheads. Given this in formation, additional safety features, and the administrative controls in place at the Yakima Training Center, a weapons accident having an impact on CGS is very improbable.

The Umatilla Chemical Depot, discussed in Section 2.2.2.1 , is used to store chemical weapons. As part of the program to demilitari ze chemical weapons, an incinerator has been constructed at the Depot for dis posal of the weapons. Risks asso ciated with weapons disposal operations at the Umatilla Chemical Depot have been quantified in a Ph ase 1 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) prepared for the U.S. Army. The QRA exam ined risks associated with storing munitions at the Depot, transporting munitions from the storage igloos to the incinerator, and processing munitions within the incinerator. Although not directly transferable to the assessment of effects at CGS, the risk estimates provide some inferences

regarding the risks to plant operation. A review of the assessment concluded that the risk to persons in the 60 to 100 km distance range due to chemical munitions disposal are very small.

It should also be recognized that operations at the Depot would be within the scope of a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that includes offsite notification.

Furthermore, pursuant to Regulatory Guide 1.78, chemicals stored or situated at distances greater than 5 miles from CGS need not be considered because, if a release were to occur, atmospheric dispersion will dilute and disperse th e incoming plume to such a degree that either toxic limits will never be reached or there woul d be sufficient time for control room operators to take appropriate action. In addition, the probability of a plume remaining within a given sector for a long period of time is quite small (Reference 2.2-9).

As stated in Section 2.2.2.1 , confinement of all radioactive materials at the ISFSI is provided by the required use of NRC certified spent fu el storage casks listed in 10 CFR 72.214.

Pursuant to the 10 CFR 72.212 report, evaluati ons performed in support of the ISFSI have demonstrated the reactor site-specific parame ters are bounded by the safety analysis for the generically approved cask. Acco rdingly, activities associated w ith the facility do not adversely impact operation of CGS (Reference 2.2-10).

Brush fires have occurred on the Hanford Site and have presented no potential hazard to

existing facilities. Areas adjacent to CGS major buildings and auxiliary facilities are maintained to prevent weed growth by landscaping, gravel, ground cover, and weed control spraying. The Hydrogen Storage and Supply Facility (HSSF) is landscaped with gravel beyond the perimeter of the site, exceeding the c ode required clearance distance, to keep the area free from dry vegetation and combustible mate rials. These or similar methods of weed control minimize brush fire hazards to CGS facilities.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-11 The potential effects of fires that involve mate rials used in the operation of the plant are discussed in Appendix F.

The formation of unconfined vapor clouds cause d by the accidental release of flammable or toxic liquids or vapors stored at the plant site is discussed in Section 6.4 and addressed by the Emergency Plan.

The non-safety-related makeup wate r intake consists of two sets of paired perforated pipe sections. One set is capable of supplying the full makeup water requireme nts of the plant. Extreme low river flow (36,000 cfs) will provide about 0.5 ft of water over the top of the

intake pipes. The probability of damage to both sets of intakes as a result of a pleasure boat or barge accident is extremely remote given the in frequency of both extreme low flows and large boat and barge traffic. In the unlikely event that such an accide nt might occur, destruction of the makeup water intake structure would be comparab le in effect to loss of offsite power to the makeup water pumps. The Seismic Category I sp ray ponds provide for 30-day cooling without makeup. This is ample time to restore makeup from either the river or wells.

There are no upstream industrial facilities for which waterborne deliveries of significant quantities of petroleum products, corrosive ch emicals, or other hazardous materials are expected. Fuel oil, diesel oil, acids, and caus tics are stored at the N-Reactor site. The oil storage facilities are protected by dikes, and th e chemical storage facilities are far enough from the river to avoid direct disc harge. Thus, there is no possi ble hazard to the plant due to spillage of such materials into the river.

There are no upstream releases which may be corrosive, cryogenic, or coagulant.

2.2.3.2 Effects of Design Basis Events

As discussed in Section 2.2.3.1 , the activities of nearby industria l, transportation, and military facilities will have no adverse effect on the plant.

2.

2.4 REFERENCES

2.2-1 Holmes, D. B., Energy Northwest, personal communication with Steve Burnam, Site Infrastructure Division, Department of Energy, July 31, 1998.

2.2-2 Presidential Proclama tion 7319, Establishment of the Hanford Reach National Monument, 65 FR 37253, June 9, 2000.

2.2-3 Chasse, J. P., Energy Northwest, personal communication with B. J. Rokkan, Safeguards and Security Division, DOE, Richland Operations Office, December 6, 1977.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 2.2-12 2.2-4 Note, D. A. Marsh, Westinghouse Hanford, to D.

E. Larson, Supply System, dated January 22, 1993.

2.2-5 Memorandum, C. A. Hansen, Assi stant Manager for Waste Management, DOE-RL to Alice Q. Murphy et al

., 98-WPD-032, February 20, 1998.

2.2-6 NUREG 0892, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, S ection 2.2.1, March 1982.

2.2-7 Arbuckle, J. D., Energy Northwest, personal communication with J. Reddick, Executive Officer, Yakima Training Center, July 29, 2003.

2.2-8 Hosler, A. G., Contact with Lo cal Organizations to Support CSB SAR Chapter 1 (Memo 042AGH.96 to Canist er Storage Building Report File), Science Applications Internati onal Corporation, May 6, 1998.

2.2-9 Holmes, D. P and Chasse, J.

P., Energy Northwest, White Paper --

Applicability of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program at the Umatilla Army Depot to the WNP-2 FSAR, December 1997.

2.2-10 Energy Northwest, I ndependent Spent Fuel Stor age Installation 10 CFR 72.212 Evaluation, Docket Number 72-35, Revision 1, September 2002.

Table 2.2-1 Hanford Site Nuclear Facilities Facility Description Hazard Design Basis Event Impact on CGS C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-11-027 2.2-13Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) Ref: Surveillance and

Maintenance Plan for FFTF, Rev. 0, DOE/RL-2009-26 Deactivated sodium cooled breeder reactor Activated solid sodium

1) 180,000 lb sodium spill hr dose at 1.5 mi = 0.015 mrem, 24-hr dose at 4.5 mi = 0.26 mrem Particulate release, effectively mitigated by distance DOE 618-10 (300 North) Waste Burial Ground

Ref: Final Hazard Categorization for the 618-10 Burial Ground Remediation, Rev.2, February 2011, WCH-390 Disposal site with broad spectrum of low- to

high-level solid radioactive wastes buried in caissons or

pipe Radioactive waste Caisson penetration with fire - unmitigated dose at 5 km = 10.2 mrem Particulate release, effectively mitigated by distance (>5 km)

DOE 618-11 (Wye) Waste Burial Ground Ref: 618-10 and 618-11 Waste Burial Grounds Basis

for Interim Operation, Rev.

1, WCH-183 Disposal site with broad spectrum of low- to high-level solid radioactive wastes and non-radiological hazardous materials buried in caissons or pipe Radioactive waste inventories, primarily Cs-137, Sr-90, and Pu-239

and non-radiological hazardous materials bounded by beryllium Caisson penetration with fire and explosion: control room doses are less than 0.1 rem; beryllium oxide

concentration of 4.6 x 10-3 mg/m 3 at 100 m from 618-11 site boundary Particulate release, effectively mitigated by credited 618-11

Waste Burial Ground project controls. The soil overburden covering the VPUs and caissons in the 618-11 Waste Burial Ground is credited for

reducing releases and is designated as a passive design feature. No missiles are postulated for this event.

Table 2.2-1 Hanford Site Nuclear Facilities (Continued)

Facility Description Hazard Design Basis Event Impact on CGS C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2011 2.2-14 B Plant Ref: B Plant Basis for Interim Operation, March 6, 1997, HNF-SD-BIO-003 Process to remove cesium and strontium from radioactive waste, deactivated, currently in surveillance and maintenance mode Residual radionuclide inventories on cell filters (137 Cs, 90Sr, and 241 Am) Flooding cell 291-B HEPA filters -

0.368 rem max. public dose Particulate release effectively mitigated by distance Plutonium-Uranium Extraction Facility (PUREX). PUREX End State Basis for Interim Operation (BIO) 1997, HNF-SD-CP-15B-004 (Draft) Currently shut down, in preparation for decommissioning and decontamination Residual plutonium and uranium contamination Design basis earthquake, dose @ 100 m - 1.9 rem; 12 km -

7.4 x 10-4 rem Particulate release, mitigated by distance Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Ref: Plutonium Finishing

Plant Final Safety Analysis

Report, 1995, WHC-SD-CP-SAR-021 Receipt and storage of SNM, reactive material stabilization, radioactive and mixed waste handling Stored SNM, and residual plutonium contamination Design basis earthquake, 8-hr dose of 15.2 rem @550 m 24-hr dose of 0.31 rem @12,500 m Particulate release, mitigated by distance Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Facilities Ref: Tank Waste Remediatio n System Basis for Interim Operation, 1997, HNF-SD-WM-BIO-00, Revision 0 Mixed radioactive and chemical wastes storage in 149 single shell tanks (SST)

and 28 double shell tanks (DST) in 12 tank farms

Associated support facility:

242-A-Evaporator SSTs contain combinations of sludge, saltcake, and interstitial and pooled liquids

DSTs contain liquid and slurry waste with small amounts of sludge

Table 2.2-1 Hanford Site Nuclear Facilities (Continued)

Facility Description Hazard Design Basis Event Impact on CGS C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2011 2.2-15 Tank Waste Remediation System- Project (TWRS-P) (private facilities, proposed for construction in 2000) Ref: DOE/RL-96-0006 Vitrify low level, high level, and transuranic mixed waste High level radioactive waste Requirements for authorization limit to less than 25 rem/event in an accident. Releases are projected to be airborne particulate. HEPA filter system would protect CGS control room operators, in accordance with the limits of GDC 19 Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF)

Ref: Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility Basis for Interim Operation, 1997, HNF-SD-WM-BIO-002 Conversion process for cesium and strontium has halted Cesium chloride and strontium fluoride salts, encapsulated in double-walled metal containers stored in water-filled cooling basin Capsule rupture following loss of water from storage pool - 24 hr exposure to public, 9 rem Control room exposure mitigated by

HEPA filters; potential evacuation of other personnel Low-Level Waste Disposal Site (Private) Buried storage of low-level radioactive waste in lined containers Low-level buried waste, monitored as required by NRC license No credible event None Canister Storage Building (CSB)

Ref: Letter; DOE to

H. J. Hatch, Flour Daniel Hanford, 28 May 97 Storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the K Basins in sealed multi-canister overpacks (MCO) 2100 metric tons of spent fuel, from production reactors Requirements for authorization limit to less than 5 rem/event in an accident. Releases are projected to be airborne particulate HEPA filter system would protect CGS

control room operators, in accordance with the

limits of GDC 19 Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDS) Ref: Letter; DOE to

H. J. Hatch, Flour Daniel Hanford, 28 May 97 Draining and vacuum drying to remove water from MCOs in preparation for interim storage at CSB Spray release Requirements for authorization limit to less than 5 rem/event in an accident. Releases are projected to be airborne particulate. HEPA filter system would protect CGS control room operators, in accordance with the limits of GDC 19

Table 2.2-1 Hanford Site Nuclear Facilities (Continued)

Facility Description Hazard Design Basis Event Impact on CGS C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2011 2.2-16B, C, D, DR, F, and H Reactors (shutdown since 1969)

Ref: WHC-EP-0619, Vol. 1. Single-pass, water-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors The onsite hazards involve personnel injury, primarily falls and electric shock. No significant offsite risks No credible event None K East and West reactors (shutdown since 1971)

Ref: WHC-EP-0619, Vol. 1. Single-pass, water-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors The onsite hazards involve personnel injury, primarily falls and electric shock. No significant offsite risks No credible event None K East and West Basins Ref: WHC-EP-0619, Vol. 1. Storage basins for spent fuel, some severely degraded Approximately 2100 metric ton inventory of irradiated reactor fuel Dropping and overturning of a transfer cask containing reactor fuel. (Bounding event; but transfer is administratively prohibited)

None N reactor (shutdown since 1987) and N Basin

Ref: WHC-EP-0619, Vol. 1. and BHI-00866, Rev 0 A pressure tube, water-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor

with fuel assemblies

removed for decontamination and decommissioning The onsite hazards involve personnel injury, primarily falls and electric shock. No significant offsite risks No credible event None

Amendment 55 May 2001 Hanford Reservation Road System 990306.15 2.2-1 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Arid Lands Ecology Reserve Columbia River Richland Benton CityYakima River WNP-1 WNP-4* HANFORD RESERVATION ROADS STATE HIGHWAYS

• WNP-4 HAS BEEN TERMINATED108642021 MILES 224 24 240 243 24 22 24 200W 200E Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Columbia Generating Station 12 12 12 12 Amendment 55 May 2001Hanford Reservation Railroad System 990306.16 2.2-2 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Arid Lands Ecology Reserve Hanford No. 1 Columbia River Richland Benton CityYakima River Columbia Generating Station WNP-1 WNP-4* HANFORD RAILROAD SYSTEM* WNP-4 HAS BEEN TERMINATED108642021 MILES Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report NORTH Figure Amendment 57December 2003 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Federal Airways and InstrumentApproaches/Departures 900547.96 2.2-3 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report SUNNYSIDE PROSSER Benton County RICHLANDPASCO COLUMBIA COLUMBIA RIVER AG CARR KENNEWICKVISTA FFTF COLUMBIA AG 2 BASIN CITYWye BarricadeMcWHORTER Hanford Site BoundaryMATT AW A Grant County Christensen Bros.DESERT AIR 301 V187°Adams CountyTAGGARES FIELD KENTFARMS OTHELLO CONNEL CITY Franklin County GREEN ACRES 332°YakimaTraining Center CGS 200West 200 East SLINKARD 269°24 243 24 17 240 4S VR1350 V281 IR329 IR329 IR329 VR1351 VR1360 VR497 V204 12 395 395 395 82 182 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-1 2.3 METEOROLOGY The italicized information, including associat ed tables and figures, is historical and was provided to support the application for an operating license.

2.3.1 REGIONAL

CLIMATOLOGY

• 2.3.1.1 General Climate The site is located in a mid-latitude semi-arid (steppe) climatic region in the Lower Columbia Basin which is the lowest elevation of any part of central Washington. A major factor influencing this climatological re gion is its location in the con tinent, well away from the windward coast and protected to the west by the 4,000 to 7, 000-ft average elevation Cascade Mountains. Dominant air masses affecting the region are of maritime polar origin as modified by the presence of these mountains. Modified continental tropical and polar air masses also periodically affect the climate. In winter, there is a succession of cyclones as the westerlies and the polar front prevail in these latitudes. The mountain barriers commonly induce these storms to occlude by delaying air mass movemen

t. Fewer frontal passages occur during the summer months since subtropica l oceanic high cells reach th eir highest latitudes thereby diverting cyclonic storms poleward. Along the eastern margin of the Pacific anticyclone, an

out-flow of stable subsiding air br ings distinctly drier conditions to the North American Pacific coast.

The regional temperatures, precipitation, and winds are greatly affe cted by the presence of the mountain barriers. The Rocky Mountains and ranges in Southern British Columbia are effective in protecting the inland basin from the more severe wint er storms and associated cold polar air masses moving southward across Canada.

Occasionally, an outbreak of cold air will pass through the Basin and result in low temperatures or a damaging spring or fall frost.

Maritime polar air traveling eastward from the coastal zone cools as it rises along the western slope of the Cascade Range.

These orographic effects cause heavy precipitation on the windward and light precip itation on the leeward slopes. Th e prevailing westerly. winds are normally strongest during winter and spring due to the presence of cyclonic scale disturbances and associated frontal activity.

During those months, foehn or chinook winds (a warm dry

• This section is based on record s kept at the Hanford Meteorol ogy Station (14 miles northwest of the site, elevation 733 ft MSL) from 1945 to 1980 (2) and 100-N area sites (1) (supplemented with precipitation and temperature data taken by U.S. Weather Bure au cooperative observers at a site about 25 miles north of the present station location during the period from 1912 to 1944 (2,3) and regional c limatological data gathered during th e period from 1931 to 1960). (4)

Other references are as indicated.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-2 wind on the lee side of a mountain range; the warm th and dryness of the ai r is due to adiabatic compression upon descending the mountain slope s) occur whenever cycl onic circulation is sufficiently strong and deep to force air completely across th e cascades in a short period of time. At other times during the winter, warm front occlusions can fo rce moist air over the Cascade Range. The mixing of this moist air with relatively cooler air in the Basin results in considerable cloudiness and fog. The percent of possible sunshine ranges from 20 to 30 percent in winter, 50 to 60 percent in spri ng and fall, and 80 to 85 pe rcent in mid-summer.

Because the site is in the rain shadow of these mountains , annual average precipitation decreases from about 100 inches near the summit of the Cascades to about 6 or 7 inches in the Basin. Approximately 70 percent of the annu al total precipitation occurs from November through April and about 10 percent occurs during July through September. Rainfall amounts are normally light in the summer and gradually in crease in late fall, reaching a peak of about one inch each month in midwin ter due to cyclonic storm and front al activity. Rainfall amounts decrease in Spring, increase somewhat in June, and again sharply decrease in July. During mid-summer, it is not uncommon to have 3- to 6-week periods w ith trace rainfa ll. There are only two occurrences per year of 24-hour amounts of 0.50 inch or more, while occurrences of 24-hour amounts of 1.00 inch or more number onl y four in the entire 25 years of record (1946 to 1970). One of these was the record storm of October 1 through 2, 1957, in which rainfall totaled 1.08 inches in three hours, 1.68 inches in six hours, and 1.88 inches in twelve hours.

At the other extreme, there have been 81 consecutive day s without measurable rain (June 22 through September 10, 1967), 139 days with only 0.18 inch (June 22 through November 7, 1967), and 172 days with only 0.32 in ch (February 24 through August 13, 1968).

About 45 percent of all precipitation during the months of December, J anuary, and February is in the form of snow. Regional annual tota l snowfall amounts have ranged from less than 1/2 inch in 1957 to 1958 to 56.1 inches for the winter of 1992-1993; the annual average total is about 14 inches.

Snow rarely remains on the ground longer than two to four weeks or re aches a depth at any time in excess of four to six in ches, as rapid melting, which ofte n contributes to local stream flooding, can occur from rain or Chinook winds. The record greatest depth of 24.5 inches occurred in February 1916.

Thunderstorms have been observed in the area in every month except November. Although severe ones are rare, lightning strikes have occasionally ign ited grass fires which burned thousands of acres of the Hanford Reservation and resulted subsequently in considerable wind erosion of soil. The most notable of these oc currences were in August 1961, July 1963, and July 1970, and August 1984.

The continental-type climate not only affects prec ipitation in the Basin but also results in wide ranges and variations in annual temperature conditions. While the regional annual average temperature is about 53°F, the coldest month, January, has a mean of about 29°F; the C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-3 warmest month, July, has a mean of about 76

°F. Although the pres ence of the cascades contributes to the wide differences in monthly average temperatures, other mountain ranges shield the area from many of the arctic surges, and half of all winters are fr ee of temperatures as low as 0°F. However, six winters in 58 of record have contributed a total of 16 days with temperatures of -20 F or below; and in January to Febr uary 1950, there were four consecutive such days. There are ten days of record when even the maximum temperature failed to rise above zero. At the other extreme , in the winter of 1925 to 1926, the lowest temperature all season was +22 F. Although winter minima have varied from -27 F to +22 F, summer maxima have varied only from 100°F to 115°F. However, there is considerable variati on in the frequency of such maxima. In 1954, for example, there was only one day with a maximum as high as 100°F. On the other hand, there have been two summers (1938 and 1 967) when the temperature went to 100°F or above for 11 consecutive days.

Although temperatures reach 90°F or above on about 56 days a year, there are only about seven annual occurrences of over night minima 70°F or above.

The usual cool nights are a result of gravity winds.

The channeling of air by the Cascade Mountains and surrounding terrain produces a prevailing WNW and NW regional flow. Local topographic features can cause ot her channeling effects and formation of local diurnal wind circulation systems which produce a greater degree of variability in winds at locations within the Basin. For example, the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) site experiences a bimodal wind direction distribution from approximately south and also northwest; at the H anford Meteorological Station (HMS) about 14 miles northwest, the direction distribution displays a single pe ak at approximately WNW to NW (refer to 2.3.2).

Drainage (gravity) winds channeled by topographic features produce a marked effect on

diurnal range of wind speed and cause the highest monthly average speeds of about 9 mph to occur during the summer months. In July, for example, hourly average speeds range from a low of 5.2 mph from 9 to 10 a.m.

to a high of 13.0 mph from 9 to 10 p.m. In contrast, the corresponding speeds in January are 5.5 and 6.3 mph. These warm season diurnal winds, resulting from relativel y cold air draining from the Cascade Mountains, occur in response to pressure gradients created betw een surface-heated warm, dry bas in air and cooler air situated over the mountains and coastal region. This favors an outbrea k of stronger winds during the afternoon and evening hours. Althoug h the gravity wind occurs with regularity in summer, it is never strong unless reinforced by frontal activity.

In June, the month of highest average speed, there are fewer instances of hourly averages exceeding 31 mph than in December, the month of lowest average speed. A complete summary of the monthly averages and extremes of climatic elements at the Hanfor d Reservation appears in Table 2.3-1.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-4 2.3.1.2 Regional Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases 2.3.1.2.1 Severe Weather Phenomena

2.3.1.2.1.1 Heavy Rain, Snow, and Ice. Glaze is a coating of ice, generally clear and smooth, but with some air pockets. It is formed on exposed object s by the freezing of super-cooled drizzle or rain drops. Glaze is denser, harder, and more transparent than either rime or hoar frost. Although th e record shows an average of seven glaze days per year, many of these cause little or no inc onvenience to the public. Two out standing exceptions occurred on February 11 to 12, 1954, and on November 23 to 24, 1970. Ther e was serious disruption to Hanford traffic in each instance although there was no known damage to transmission lines. In each instance, rising temper atures soon melted the ice.

Precipitation frequency (rain and snow), intensity, and quantity st atistics are presented in Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 and Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-3. For the winter of 1992-93, the following snowfall records were set: grea test winter snowfall (56.1 inches

); most days with greater than 1, 6, and 12 inches on the ground (71, 41, and 9, respectively); and greatest 24-hour snowfall (10.2 inches) on February 18 and 19. Probable maximum pr ecipitation is given in 2.4.3.1.

2.3.1.2.1.2 Thu nderstorms and Hail. Thunderstorms may occu r during any month of the year at Hanford. A thunderstor m day is one in which thunder is heard. If a thunderstorm should begin in late evening and last past mi dnight, it is counted as two thunderstorm days even though only one storm event occurred. Simila rly, should there be two or more distinct thunderstorms in a day - and this sometimes happens - it is c ounted as a singl e thunderstorm day. The table below shows the mo nthly frequency of thunderstorms.

HMS TH U N DERSTO R M DAYS: 1945-1970

J F M A M J J A S O N D SUM Total 0 1 7 18 53 64 46 54 24 5 0 0 272 Average 0 # # 1 2 3 2 2 1 # 0 0 11

% of Total 0 # 3 7 19 23 17 20 9 2 0 0 100

1. = Less than 0.5

Although the table above shows 0 for the months of November through January, a thunderstorm occurred at HMS on December 22, 1971. In Richland, one occurred on January 18, 1953. However, th e thunderstorm season essentially includes only the months of April through September. Alt hough the average is eleven days pe r year, the number has varied from three to twenty-three.

In June 1948, there were ei ght thunderstorm days during the month; and this record was re peated in August 1953. The r ecords show that cold fronts probably constitute the greatest single cause of thunderstorms at HMS. During the years of 1947 to 1955, 43 percent of all thunderstorm days during the months of May through August C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-5 were directly associated with cold frontal passages. On several occasions (notably on August 7, 1953), lightning has struck the HMS tower.

Peak gust data are not available for the 50-, 200-, and 400- ft levels prior to 1952. Of the

185 thunderstorm days occ u rring during the period of 1952 to 19 7 0, the speed classification of

peak gusts on these days is as follows:

Number of Cases  % of Total mph 50 ft 200 ft 400 ft 50 ft 200 ft 400 ft < 21 18 9 5 10 5 3 21 -30 75 45 42 40 24 23 31 -40 63 80 73 34 43 39 41 -50 23 34 46 12 19 25 51 -60 4 11 12 2 6 8 61 -70 1 4 5 1 2 3

> 70 1 2 2 1 1 1 185 185 185 100 100 100

Precipitation was not m e asured during 1945 and 1946 in wh i c h 26 thunderstorm days

occurred. During the period of 1947 to 197 0 , 246 thunderstorm days we re recorded. The

daily precipitation distribution d u ring these days was as follows:

Amount - Inches Number of Cases

% of Total None or trace 110 45 0.01 - 0.10 87 35 0.11 - 0.25 29 12 0.26 - 0.50 15 6 > 0.50 5 2 246 100 Precipitation intensities are defined in Reference 2.3-5.

The record for rainfall intensity during a thunderstorm is 0.55 inch in 20 minutes (1.65 inches per hour) on June 12, 1969. This storm included hailstone s of 1/4-inch diameter.

Hail was reported on fourteen, or 5 percent, of the total thunde rstorm days. Blowing dust or dust was reported on sixteen thunderstorm days and both hail and blowing dust or dust on six days.

Hail is a rare phenomenon at Hanford. For a ll years of record, hail ha s not occurred more than twice in any year. Of the 272 thunderstorm days from 1945 to 1970, hail was reported on fourteen or 5 percent of these days. Hail was also reported on two days without occurrence C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-6 of either a cold frontal passage or a thunderstorm on the same day. The distribution by months of days on which hail occurred is as follows:

J F M A M J J A S O N D Total Number 0 1 1 4 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 14 % of Total 0 7 7 30 14 7 14 14 7 0 0 0 100 Where size was reported, all except two reports i ndicated sizes in the 0.2-to 0.3-inch range.

The exceptions were May 26, 1954, and July 1, 1955, when the size reported was 0.4 inch.

There is no known case of local damage from hail.

2.3.1.2.1.3 Tornadoes

The State of Washington experie nces, on the average, less than one tornado each year. Within a one hundred mile radius of the site, only f ourteen tornadoes have b een reported since 1916.

These tornadoes are listed in Table 2.3-4. Of these fourteen reco rded tornadoes, only five had any damage associated with them. A more extensive survey of tornadoes in the three northwestern states (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho) was performe d by Fujita (6). His results indicate that tornadoes and hailstorms in this area occur primarily in "a lleys". The locations of these "alleys" are shown in Figure 2.3-3 along with locations of tornadoes which have been recorded in the tri-state area during th e twenty-year period from 1950 to 1969.

Jaech (7) has analyzed the data of Fujita (6) to determine the probability of a tornado striking the Jersey Nuclear Company Fuel Facility (now Siemens Power Co rporation), which is located about eight miles from the si te. His analysis estimates the probability of occurrence of a tornado in the vicinity of the Exxon site as six chances in a million during any given year or about one chance in four thousand during a forty-year plant life.

The peak tornado wind velocity estimated for the site is 214 mph (Reference 2.3-7). This includes an estimated maximum rotational and translational wind velo cities (at a 95-percent confidence level). Daubek (Reference 2.3-8) estimates the maximum tr anslational velocity to be 30 mph. The maximum pressure drop in the center of the tornado relative to the environment is estimated to be up to 1.5 psi (Reference 2.3-6). These values are equal to or le ss than those tornado parameters listed for a Class III region (which includes the site location) in Regulatory Guide 1.76, issued April 1974. Prior to the issuance of this guide, CGS was designed to withstand some of th e most stringent NRC tornado criteria presented for a site located within a Class I region.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-7 A comparison between criter i a used for CGS and t hose applicab l e to C l a ss I and III regions are given belo w:

Design Bas i s Tornado Character i s t i cs

Maximum Wind Rotational Translational Speed (mph) Speed (mph)

Speed (mph)

Maximum Minimum Class I Region 360 290 70 5 Class III Region 240 190 50 5 CGS 360 300 60

- Radius of Maximum Rotational Speed (ft)

Pressure Drop (psi) Rate of Pressure Drop (psi/sec)

Class I Region 150 3.0 2.0 Class III Region 150 1.5 0.6 CGS 264 - 880 3.0 1.0

Wind and tornado loading criteria used in th e CGS structural design are discussed in Section 3.3.

2.3.1.2.1.4 Strong Winds. The Hanford region experiences high wind speeds due to squall lines, frontal passages, strong pressure gradi ents and thunderstorms. The Hanford Reservation has experienced only one recorded tornado (June 1948) and has not been known to be affected by typhoons. No comp lete statistics are readily available whic h present frequency of occurrence of high winds produced or accompanied by a particular meteorological event.

However, the highest winds produced by any cause are tabulated for HMS in Tables 2.3-5 and 2.3-6. Figure 2.3-4 indicates the return proba b ility of any peak wind gust, again due to any

cause.

The speed-direction summary (Table 2.3-6) shows that daily peak gus ts of at least 40 mph have occurred from all but four of the sixteen co mpass points indicated. The SW octant, however, accounts for 65 percent of such cases. The SSW octant accounts for 83 percent of daily peak gusts of 50 mph or over and 100 percent of those 60 mph or over. Since WNW and NW are the most frequently observed direc tions at HMS, they account for almost half of all daily peak gusts. However, less than 3 percent of these are at speeds of 40 mph or more. By contrast, 23 percent of daily peak gusts from the SSW and SW attain this speed. Although the winter season has a lower average wi nd speed than any other, it also has the greatest frequency of days with peak gusts 40 mph or over (10 percent). This compares with 8 pe rcent for spring, 7 percent for fall, and 5 percent for summer. How ever, reflecting the frequent periods of stagnation in winter, this season also has the highest frequency of days with peak gusts under

Peak wind gust data associ ated with thunderstorm activity are given in 2.3.1.2.1.2.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-8 10 mph (16 percent). This com pares with 10 percent for fall and 1 percent for spring. In summer, such days are virtually non-existent with only one being tabulated in 1,102 days of record. About 60 percent of the days from May through August experie nce drainage winds of at least 13 mph from the west direction for at least two hours daily duri ng the period of 1600 to 2400 PST.

The annual extreme fast est mile of wind speed

• for a given region has been commonly used as the best available measure of wi nd for design purposes (Reference 2.3-9). The standard reference speed level is normally chosen at the 30-ft elevation, and wind speed is assumed to vary with the one-seven th power of height.

All CGS structures have been designed to w ithstand a basic wind (fa stest mile) velocity, including gusts of 100 mph at an eleva tion of 30 ft above the site grade.

This design speed value is conservative for the CGS site since the 100 year return period peak gust as shown in Figure 2.3-4 at HMS is 86 mph at an elevation of 50 ft (as given in Tables 2.3-5 and 2.3-6 at that level peak gusts have not exceeded 80 mp h during the period 1945 to present). The 100 year return period fastest mile of wind would be less than 86 mph since by definition gust velocity divided by an appropriate gust factor provides the velocity of the fastest mile of wind. Although not recorded in histori cal records the 100 y ear fastest mile of wind can be expected to be in the range of 66 to 78 mph. These values are based on the application of gust factors of 1.3 and 1.1 (Reference 2.3-10) for gusts of one and 10 sec durations

• • respectively to the estimated historical value of 86 mph.

2.3.1.2.1.5 High Air Pollution Potential (APP) and Dust Storm Potential. Larson (11) has concluded that "consideration of the general weather paramet ers indicates a significantly high average annual APP over southeastern Washington." Holzworth (12) has estimated that the

mean maximum January mixing depth in the Hanford area is about 250 meters, which is nearly the lowest in the contiguous United States, and for July about 2,000 meters. Hosler (13) has indicated a significantly high frequency of low-leve l inversion in winter o ver this area - on the order of 43 percent with bases below 150 meters. The occurrence of very stable and moderately stable conditions be tween the surface and 60 meters in winter at the Hanford Meteorology Tower is 66.5 percent.

Stagnation is defined by Huschke (14) as "the persistence of a given volume of air over a region, permitting an abnormal buildup of pollutants from sources within the region". Defining the establishment of stagnation as an uninterrupted period of daily average wind speed of 5.0 miles per hour or le ss and/or a peak gust of 15 mile s per hour or less, Jenne (15)

• Fastest mile of wind is generally defined as either the fastest speed associated with 1 mile of passing wind or fastest obser ved 1 minute wind speed.

• • According to Huschke (Glossary of Meteorology, 1959), the duration of a gust is usually less than 20 seconds.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-9 compiled a 15-year summary of Hanford stagnati on periods covering the months of November through February (1947-48 through 1961-62).

Both of the two most notable Hanford stagnation periods experienced during this time occurred in November and December 1952. The first pe riod was from November 15 to December 3 (19 days). Then, after five days of ventilation, stagnation set in again December 9 and lasted through December 28 (20 days). Average wind speeds during the two periods were respectively, 2.6 and 2.9 miles per hour. Eleven days during the first period and eight during the second had peak gusts under 10 miles per hour. One day during the first period and two during the second had average speeds less than 1.0 miles per hour with peak "gusts" of 4 miles per hour. There were 13 day s of fog in each period.

Although stagnation lasting for 20 days can be expected only one season in twenty, a 10-day stagnation period can be expected every other season. Only one season in three will fail to produce a stagnation period of at least eight days.

Air quality in the Hanford area, in terms of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulates, is routinely measur ed by the Hanford Environmenta l Health Foundation. (18,29)

For the year 1971, SO2 measur ement in Richland averaged le ss than 0.02 ppm. At other sampling stations, the concentrations were below the detection limit of 0.01 ppm. In 1974, all 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> sequential samples of SO 2 measured in the vicinity of Richland, North Richland, and Hanford 300 Area had concentratio ns below the detection limit of 0.005 ppm which is 25% of the annual average ambient air standard of 0.02 ppm. The 19 7 1 and 1974 measurements for

NO2 and suspended pa r ticu l ates are shown below:

Air Quality Measurements-Annual Averages f o r 1971 and 1974 (18, 2 9* ) (these data are based on 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> integrated samples)

NO2 (pom) Location No. of Samples Max. Min. Avg. Richland (747

Building) 49 6.8 0.06 0.86 Opposite Richland 170 0.019 <.001 0.005 (Hobkirk Ranch) ( 78) (0.022) (0.001) (0.006)

Opposite N.

Richland 157 3.0 <.001 0.024

• Concentrations in parentheses are for 1974.

• • High value due to a local dust storm.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-10 (Gilliam Ranch)

(130) (0.020) (0.001) (0.006) Opposite 300

Area 170 0.025 0.001 0.005 (Sullivan Ranch)

( 77) (0.014) (0.001) (0.005)

Ringold 166 0.028 0.001 0.006 (Keys Ran c h)

White Bluffs 149 0.028 0.001 0.006 (McLane Ranch) Suspe n d ed Particulate

( g/m+3)

Location No. of Samples Max. Min. Avg. Richland (747 Building) 42 (125) 440 (572)** 25 ( 8) 120 ( 57) Opposite Ri c h land - - - -

(Hobkirk Ranch)

Opposite N. Richland

- - - -

(Gilliam Ranch)

Opposite 300 Area - - - - (Sullivan Ranch)

Ringold - - - - (Keys Ran c h)

White Bluffs

- - - -

(McLane Ranch) The major cause of air pollution in the Hanford area is dust occurring during windy periods.

The most significant sources are cultivated fields in the surrounding area. A limited amount of information is available regarding atmospheric dust loading in the Hanford area. Hilst and Nickola (16) conducted limited dust investigations over a range of wind speeds and to heights of 400 feet in the Hanford area. A portion of their findings is presented in Figure 2.3-5. Other investigations which have been made in the Hanford area and reported by Sehmel and Lloyd (17) demonstrate the depe ndence of airborne concentrations on wind speed as shown in Figure 2.3-6.

Measurements of the particulate burden in air at a specific observation point in the 200 Areas at Hanford showed values of around 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air when the wind was less than 8 mph. The particulat e content increased when higher winds were present, averaging 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter with winds of 12 mph, and 3,000 micrograms per cubic meter with winds of 16 mph.

Additional considerations regarding the A ugust 11, 1955 and Januar y 11, 1972 dust storms shown in Figures 2.3-5 and 2.3-6 and other climatological dus t storm characteristics at Hanford are contained in the following paragraphs.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-11 2.3.1.2.1.5.1 Evaluati on of August 11, 1955 and January 11, 1972 Dust Storms at Hanford. The wind speeds at 1.25 ft., 50 ft. and 400 ft.

heights for the A ugust 11, 1955 observation period were 14, 24, 31 mph respectively.

Figure 2.3-5 represents atypical conditions for the site region. The case was or iginally selected for study as a situation with considerable airborne dust conditions com pared to average conditions.

A Hanford climatological summary of dust storms is given in Table 2.3-40 for 1953-1970 (30).

Dust dependence on wind speed and direction (50 ft.) at the Hanford Meteorological Station is given in Table 2.3-41 for the same period (30). Approximat e values of dust concentrations are computed based on an empirical relationshi p using visibility observations (31). The relationship is C6 56v1.25mg/m 3 where V is horizontal visibility in km. This is based on data from the Great Plains with visibilities 7 to 9 miles and wind speeds greater than 12 mph.

Hourly weather observations at the Hanford Meteorological Station were used as input criteria to define a wind resuspension or dust storm period. Hours satisfying dust st orm criteria at Hanford (1953-1970) had either visibilities less than 7 miles and dust reported, or visibilities between 7-14 miles, wind speeds greater than 5.8 m/s, and relative humidities less than 70%.

Since the above empirical concentration - visibility re lationship was based on observ ed dust concentrations at approximately 5-6 feet above the surface, any me asured dust data should be interpolated to that height when comparing the measuremen ts to the calculated 1953-1970 results of Table 2.3-41. (30)

The frequency of the hourly data satisfying the dust storm criteria at Hanford is given in Table 2.3-42. (30)

The August 11, 1955 dust storm has an interpolated 5-ft value of 17 mg/m 3 compared with the climatological average of about 7 mg/m

3. Further inspection of the climatological values in Table 2.3-41 , supports a conclusion that the storm is an example of the more severe type of dust storm that occurs in this region.

Care must be taken in interpretation of Tables 2.3-40 to 2.3-42 to allow for certain limitations. Estimates based on visibilities and/or wind speeds outside the range used in formulation of Equation 1 are of unknown reliab ility. The average visibilities within each wind speed class were within the range of empiri cal validity except for the high wind cases. Another source of errors is the fact that the visibility observat ions are taken at specific times and are not hourly averages. Considering these limitations Tables 2.3-40 to 2.3-42 may be taken to represent overall aspects of the Hanford du st storm climatology. Individual values must be considered approximate estimates - par ticularly those based on only a few data points.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-12 The extreme value in Table 2.3-41 in the 53 to 66 mph class (988 mg/m

3) represents a single observation of 0-1/16 miles visibility for a few minutes. Typica lly at the onset of a dust storm very low visibilities with high wi nds occur for a few minutes.

The very limited visibility and high winds for such a period were coded for th e data for that hour. The station log reveals that five minutes after the ons et of this dust storm, the winds had dropped to 37 mph and visibility was 3/8 mile. The phenomenon was ge nerated by a thunderstorm passing close to the station. Hence, the extreme value in Table 2.3-41 represents an occurre nce of very short duration which was the onset of a dust stor m that had a duration of about one hour. Qualitative observation indicates that this is not an atypical scenario. Over the 40 minute duration of the storm, the average calculated average dust concentration was 60 mg/m

3. It should be noted, however, that th e onset concentration (988 mg/m

3) is of unknown validity because it is calculated from a visibility value for which the empirical model has not been validated.

The visibility during the Januar y 11, 1972 storm was initially less than one mile, changing to four miles during the last half hour of the re ported episode. The January 11, 1972 dust storm had winds at 50' WSW in the range 31 to 43 mph.

Wind storms with peak gusts recorded at 50' on the Hanford Tower during this period have a three to four year return period at Hanford.

Actual particulate loading depends on other factors such as surface conditions and atmospheric stability. Hence, the wind gust return period does not necess arily apply to particulate loading

although it is reasonable to assume the retu rn period is not less than that for wind.

Detailed estimates of the particul ate size and total mass concentr ations cannot be accurately made for the January 11, 1972 dust storm as a result of the lack of any particle size distribution data. In additi on, only one height of mass concentration datum (189 mg/m 3 at 0.2m) was made in the steep gradient region of the vertical profile.

An indication of size distribution and mass loading profile s can be obtained from other data collected at Hanford.

Sehmel (32) reports an April 1972 storm which has mass loadings near the surface which are similar to the January 11, 1972 storm. Althoug h adjacent meteorologica l observations are not available for this episode, the fa ct that the mass loadings at th e lower levels are of the same order as the January 11, 1972 dust storm provides a basis for comparison of the storms. The April 1972 storm has well documented mass loading pr ofiles as a function of particle size. The table shown below contains the profiles of airborne soil concentrations as a function of particle diameter for the dust storm. These are based on optical measurements for smaller particles

(.16 to 5 m) at 0.9m and, impacter-cowl measurements for la rger particles (1 to 230 m) at the indicated heights. The mass loading is dominated by the larger particle data.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-13 Soil Mass Loading for the April 1972 Dust Storm (mg/m

3) Particle Height (m)

Diameter Range ( m) 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 10. 32. 0.9 - 5.0 0.21 0.11 *

• 0.058 .0038 5 - 20 0.83 0.28 0.26 .25 0.070 .0056 20 - 60 14. 4.4 2.9 1.5 .81 .29 60 - 240 220. 6.6 2.8 1.3 .19 .11 Total 235 11.4 6.0 ~3.1 1.13 0.41 Comparison of the dust loading of 6

.0 mg/m 3 at 2 meters with the c limatological summaries in Tables 2.3-41 and 2.3-42 indicates that this is a t y pical dust storm for the region.

The particle size distribution for the August 11, 1955 storm is shown in the following table for comparison.

Airborne Dust Loadi ngs of Particles Greater Than 0.

9 For August 11, 1955 Dust Storm (mg/

m 3) Particle Height (m)

Diameter Range ( m) 0.38 2.0 15.2 30.5 0.9 - 5.0 0.015 0.012 0.012 0.0079 5 - 20 0.39 0.32 0.23 0.17 20 - 60 3.1 2.2 1.1 0.77 60 - 240 18. 12.0 2.3 0.78 Total 22. 14.5 3.7 1.7 The April 1972 dust storm has higher mass loadings near the surfa ce in all size ranges. The August 11, 1955 dust storm had hi gher dust loadings above 1 to 2 m heights in the ranges greater than 5 diameter. One interpretation of th ese profiles is that the 1972 storm had a source nearby and the 1955 data re presents advection of airbor ne dust from more remote sources (33).

2.3.1.2.1.5.2 Hanford Dust Storm Climatology for De sign and Operating Bases. The Hanford climatological study of dust storms for 195 3-1970 (30) (discussed in the previous subsection) was re-examined for the purpose of establishing the "worst case" dust storm which may have occurred during that period (33). The worst case dust storm, i.e., that storm which had the largest calculated time in tegrated dust loading (mg-hr/m 3), is considered to be

• No value in reference.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 54 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT April 2000 LDC N-9 8-1 1 7 2.3-14 160 mg-hr/m 2, duration of 18 hr, and average dust loading of 8.9 mg/m 3 at a height of 5 to 6 ft. The design basis dust st orm is bounded by a postulated volcanic ashfall event (see Section 2.5.1.2.6) in the evaluation of the design and performance of HVAC systems and diesel generators. Results of this worst case dust storm investigation are listed below. As mentioned above, these loadings would apply for a height of 5 to 6 feet above the ground.

Detailed Estimates of the Dust Loadings for the Six Worst Storms Based on Surface Observations of the Hanford Meteorology Station, 1953-1970 Storm Number Total Dust Loading (mg-hr/m 3) Actual Duration (hr) Average Dust Loading (mg/m 3) 1 40* 0.67 60 2 100 1.0 100 3 160 18**

8.9 4 44 2.6 17 5 90 3.1 29 6 80 7 11

The worst storm of these was storm No. 3. While it was also shown in this study that once a given dust storm terminated, there existed a 5% probability that an other one would occur within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> and a 50% probability that another one would occur within 30 days, none of

the above six worst ca se dust storms had occurr ed within 30 days of each other. Most had occurred in different years during the 1953-1970 study period.

The dust loading for storm No. 3 is conservative in terms of its being considered as the worst case storm for use in plant design evaluations. As a result of the shorter storm durations of the measured August 11, 1955, January 11, 1972, and April 1972 dust storms, their time integrated dust loadings at 5-6 feet above the ground are not worse than that computed for storm No. 3 (33).

2.3.1.2.2 Design Snow Load

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in "Build ing Code Requirements for minimum Design Loads in Buildings and other Stru ctures" (19) provides weights of 100-year return period ground level snow packs for the site region. The ANSI (Reference 2.3-19) value

• Value is less than actual dust loading as a result of less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> duration.

• • The detailed investigation yiel ded 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> as opposed to a range of 1-16 hours given in Table 2.3-40 of 2.3.1.2.1.5.1 for the range in duration of du st storms using the same 1953-1970 data.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1 998 2.3-15 of 20 lb/ft 2 was used as the design snow load for all CGS structures.

• Assuming a specific gravity of 0.1 or snow density 6.24 lb/ft 3 , this design value correspon ds to a snow depth of 3.2 ft. The above snow load is conservative for the site as snow depth seldom exceeds six inches, and the grea test depth of 24.5 inches was reco rded in February 1916. (4) The weight of the 48-hour probable ma ximum winter precipitation can be determined from the data presented in Table 2.3-3. Since the greatest snowfa ll in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> was 10.2 inches (February 1993) and a record depth of approximately 12 inches lasted four days (December 1964) these depths would correspond to snow lo ads of 5.3 and 6.24 lb/ft 2 respectively.

2.3.1.2.3 Meteorological Da ta Used for Evaluation of Ultimate Heat Sink

The ultimate heat sink is evaluated in Section 9.2.5.

The meteorological data presented in Figure 2.3-7 and Tables 2.3-1 , 2.3-5 , and 2.3-7a-7h was used to evaluate the perform ance of the CGS spray ponds in 9.2.5 with respect to (1) maximum evaporation and drift loss and (2) minimum water cooling. In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.27, Rev. 1 "Ultimate Heat Sink fo r Nuclear Power Plants", the worst one-day and 30-day periods of meteorologica l record which resulted in minimum heat transfer to the atmosphere were established. The worst recorded 30-day period (30-day average) of maximum difference between dry-bulb and dewpoint temperature and highe st simultaneously recorded wind speeds which resulted in the maximum evapor ation and drift loss were also established.

Climatological moisture and temperature data pres ented as a function of time of day for each month in Figure 2.3-7, and wind statistics given in Table 2.3-5 were used to establish the maximum initial pond temperature for the ultimate heat sink analyses in 9.2.5. It was determined in

9.2.5 using

these meteorological data, solar radiation formulas contained in ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, and techniques outlined in the John Hopkins University Report "Cooling Water Studies" (E dison Electric Institute Rese arch Report No. 5, Project RP-49, November 1969) that the month of July contained the worst average meteorological data which resulted in the ma ximum initial pond temperature.

The worst day meteorological data was considered to be the given combination of meteorological parameters in a particular consecutive twenty-f our hour period which resulted in the worst pond thermal performance. The following recorded episodes of extreme wet bulb temperatures experienced at the CGS and/or HMS sites were evaluated in 9.2.5 to establish the worst pond thermal performance:

1) August 7-9, 1972 at CGS and HMS, presented in Table 2.3-7a (20),

• Ice loading is included in this CGS estimate.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDC N-0 2-0 0 0 2.3-16 2) July 4-12, 1975 at CGS, presented in Tables 2.3-7b to 2.3-7e from the onsite FSAR meteorological monitoring program,

3) August 4, 1961 at HMS, presented in Table 2.3-7f (21).

The meteorological conditions wh ich occurred on July 10, 1975 at CGS resulted in the worst pond thermal performance as determined in 9.2.5.

The following worst month meteorological data were used in 9.2.5 to establish the second through thirtieth day worst pond thermal performance and worst 30-day drift loss and evaporation (Reference 2.3-21):

a) July 9 - August 8, 1961 at HMS, presented in Table 2.3-7a (minimum heat transfer)

b) July 2 - August 1, 1960 at HMS, presented in Table 2.3-7h (maximum evaporation and drift loss)

Diurnal variations in dry bulb and wet bulb temperatur es for both 30-day periods assumed that the hourly temperature varia tion approximated a sine wa ve of one cycle in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (Reference 2.3-21). The average wind speeds during both 30-day periods was approximately 5.5 mph. The root mean squar e average of the hourly wind speed data for the 30-day mass loss period is 6.91 mph.

For conservatism in the therma l analysis, the worst day data for thermal performance was assumed to repeat in the analysis until pond temp erature peaked (three days repetition). For conservatism in the mass loss analysis, an upper bound curve was fit to the drift loss data taken during spray pond testing. The drift loss valu e was obtained from this curve. See 9.2.5 for details.

2.3.2 LOCAL

METEOROLOGY

2.3.2.1 Data Comparisons

The local meteorology prior to CGS plant operation at the CGS site c an be described from FSAR meteorological data procur ed during the period April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1976 from the permanent onsite 7-ft and 2 45-ft meteorological towers. Da ta collected fr om the 245-ft CGS tower had been used for the short-term (accident) and long-term (routine) diffusion estimates. Onsite meteorological data were also obtained from a temporary 23-ft tower which commenced operation in April 1972 for the purpose of determining optimum cooling tower geometric orientation for performance during high wet bulb periods.

The 23-ft meteorological tower data were also used with other regi onal data to establish the potential impact of proposed mechanical draft cooling tower atmos pheric releases in th e vicinity of CGS C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-17 (Reference 2.3-22). The permanent tower data have b een compared where appropriate and possible, with simultaneously recorded and historical data obtaine d from the Hanford Meteorological Station (HMS) for the purpose of documenting the representativeness of the two years of onsite meteorological measurements. For the months of April through August 1974, comparisons have also been made with data from the onsite temporary tower; this tower and instrumentation were dismantled in Se ptember 1974. Monthl y and annual average comparisons between simultaneously recorded and historical data for all the aforementioned meteorological tower sites have indicated that agreement between the data sources is reasonably good.

When comparing sources of data, it should be recognized that at any given time, significant differences can exist between th e reported meteorological conditi ons at the CGS and HMS sites (see, for example, Table 2.3-7a). Differences in the frequencies of occurrence of various meteorological conditions at a given site can also exist from year to year or from one elevation to another elevation at a site for coincident observation times. Any discrepancies between summarized data sources can also be attributed (in addition to s ite separation and instrument height above ground) to differenc es in types and accuracies of instrumentation used and

procedures considered for ac quiring, processing, and analyzi ng raw meteorological data.

Details regarding the onsite meteorological measurement program are presented in 2.3.3.

For the following data comparisons, the following definitions are used:

CGS Data obtained from the permanent 7' and 245' towers at the CGS site; summarized here for April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1976.

CGS (temp). Data obtained from the tempor ary 23' tower at the CGS site; summarized here for April 1, 1974 - August 31, 1975.

HMS: Data obtained from the Hanford Me teorological Station; used here for April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1976.

HMS (hist): Data obtained from the Hanf ord meteorology towe r at the Hanford Meteorological Station, used here for various periods identified in the data comparison listings. The source is AEC Research and Development

Report "Climatography of the Hanford Area", June 1972, BNWL-1605.

Wind Variable: At CGS an hour of data whic h contains less than 15 minutes of any one direction sector; at Hanford, the same but for 20 minutes.

Data obtained at the 33 foot (10 meter) elevation is pres ented since these data have been subsequently used in the site diffusion studies for postulated ground-level release cases.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-18 Wind Calm: At CGS, an hour of data for wh ich the average speed is 0.22 miles per hour or less; at Hanford, average sp eed less than 1 mph (as decided by weather observer, co rresponds to no motion of st rip-chart recorded pen).

Sense of Delta T: Positive values imply rela tive stability, negative values imply relative instability.

The first annual cycle of CGS onsite mete orological data which covered the period April 1, 1974 through March 31, 1975 has been presented in deta il. Local meteorological data collected during the second annual cycle (April 1, 1975 through March 31, 1976) generally portrayed the same characteristic s as indicated by comparison w ith the first annual cycle data. Except for the high wet bulb episode experienced at CGS during July 1975 (refer to 2.3.1.2.3 and 2.3.2.3), no monitored onsite data proved to be more severe in terms of the design and operation of CGS than those data presented in 2.3.1.2. Hence, only the second annual cycle monthly averages have been presented in Table 2.3-8a which summarizes the two years of monitored on-site data with concurrently measured and historic al HMS data. Any significant differences noted between first and second annual cycle onsite dat a and concurrent ly measured CGS and HMS data ar e discussed in 2.3.2.1. Otherwise, conclusions st ated herein for the first annual cycle of data similarly apply to the second annual cycle data. It is observed in Table 2.3-8a that any year to year differences in the summarized monthly mean meteorological data at tend to parallel the differences in the means summarized for the HMS site for corresponding months during the two year monitoring period.

Summaries of joint frequency distributions of wind direction and wind speed by atmospheric stability class and results from accident and rout ine diffusion estimates fo r both annual cycles of CGS onsite meteorological data are presented in subs equent sections.

Magnetic tape files of the two yea rs of hourly onsite data have been transmitted to the NRC.

2.3.2.1.1 Winds

Table 2.3-8b presents monthly and annual CGS joint wi nd speed and direction data for the first annual cycle of monitoring. Similar data for the HMS site are given in Table 2.3-9. The CGS data presented in the above tables were collected at an elevati on of 33 feet above local grade for the one year period of record whereas th e HMS historical data were collected at an elevation of 50 feet above local grade during the period 1955 through 1970 (HMS is approximately 280 feet higher in elevation than the CGS site). Additional wind direction frequency statistics are presented in Table 2.3-10.

The CGS 33 ft and CGS (temp) 23 ft wind direction data given in Table 2.3-10 have similar distributions of direction fr equency and show a bimodal wi nd direction distribution from approximately South and also Northwest. These distributions differ from that given for the HMS site where the direction distribution displays a single peak at approximately West C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-19 Northwest to Northwest. Further, the wind direc tion distribution at the CG S site is much more uniform around the compass than it is at the HMS site. The differences in these distributions may be attributed to the influen ce of terrain features, causing va riability of air flow at the CGS site. This conclusion is stre ngthened by the observation that the CGS monthly wind frequency distributions are similar through-out the period of data acquisition.

Tables 2.3-11 and 2.3-12 provide the 20 longest occurrences of wind direction persistence at CGS for an elevation of 33 feet.

Table 2.3-11 shows persistence in one (22.5 degree) sector while Table 2.3-12 shows persistence within two (45 degrees) adjoini ng sectors; the corresponding stability class distri butions and average wind speed within each stability class are also provided.

It is noted that the majority of the periods of high direction persistence at CGS are associated with unstable, neutral, and mode rately stable atmospheric cond itions and moderate to strong wind speeds. These represent relatively good diffusion conditions.

Table 2.3-12a summarizes the longest persistences of wind direction in one and two sectors at CGS measured during the first and second annual cycles.

The annual frequency and dura tion of episodes of high wind direction persistence at CGS de pend upon the frequency and intens ity of weather systems which result in regional large scale gradient flow.

For example, during th e first annual cycle, the longest persistence in one and two sectors lasted 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> (NW) and 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> (NW, NNW) respectively. During the second annual cycle, th e longest persistence in one and two sectors lasted 33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> (NNE) and 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> (N, NNE) respec tively. Wherea s the longest persistence in one sector during the first annual cycle lasted 14 ho urs, the duration of th e first three longest persistences in one sector dur ing the second annual cycle (33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> from NNE, 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> from SSW, and 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> from NW) ex ceeded that longe st duration.

Table 2.3-13 presents monthly frequen cy distributions and averages of wind speed measured at the CGS and HMS sites. Considering site separation, elevation of sensors, and instrumentation and pr ocedural differences, the CGS wi nd data appear meteorologically reasonable and demonstr ate consistency among data sources.

2.3.2.1.2 Moisture and Temperature

Diurnal variation and averages of dry-bulb, wet-bulb, and dew-point temperatures for the first annual cycle of monitoring at the CGS and HMS sites are given in Tables 2.3-14 to 2.3-16. Tables 2.3-17 to 2.3-19 present frequency dist ributions of dry-bulb, wet-bulb, and dewpoint temperatures, summarized for the first year of CGS site observations.

Table 2.3-20 contains additional climatological summaries of monthly normals and extreme valu es of temperature and humidity measured at HMS.

Considering the 280 ft difference between the CGS and HMS site s and assuming a dry adiabatic lapse rate of 5.48°F/

1000 ft, one can expect a temperature differ ence of about 1.5°F between the dry-bulb temperature data measured at both sites.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-20 Higher monthly average wet-bulb and dewpoint temperatures occurred at CGS since the CGS site experienced air of slightly higher moisture content than the HMS site. The higher moisture content may be attributed to Columbia River prox imity and irrigation of the fields in the vicinity of CGS. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that mo isture enhancement at CGS was at a minimum for the months of January, Februar y, and March during the first annual cycle of CGS site observations.

During the second annual cycle of monitoring, it was observed t hat the CGS site experienced air of essentially the sa me moisture content as did the HMS site. The absence of the moisture enhancement at CGS, which was noted during the first annual cycle, may be attributed to reduced evaporation from the proximate river a nd irrigated fields. The periodic occurrences (during the second annual cycle) of cooler dry-bulb temperatures and precipitation deficits when high dry-bulb temperatur es prevailed may have resulte d in reduced evaporation.

2.3.2.1.3 Monthly Precipitation

Diurnal variation of precipitation intensity at CGS and monthly total precipitation at CGS and HMS for the first annual cycle of monitoring are given in Table 2.3-21. Frequency of occurrence of precipitation intensity data from April 1974 through March 1975 at CGS are presented in Table 2.3-22. Frequency of occurrence of wind speed and direction versus precipitation intensity for the sa me year of data is given in Table 2.3-22a. The data show that the CGS site experienced less precipitation than did the HMS site.

The difference can be attributed to site separ ation and the incidence of precipitati on falling in the form of showers of quite limited spatial extent.

The precipitation deficit at CGS may also result from a rain shadow effect from Rattlesnake Mountain. A pr ecipitation gradient is kn own to exist along the slope of this terrain feature.

2.3.2.1.4 Fog

Fog data are unavailable for the site. Although fog has been observed in every month of the year at HMS, it is esse ntially a seasonal phenomenon with 95 percent of it observed during the months of November through February. Inclusion of March and October fog would increase this percentage to 99.7.

Tables 2.3-23 and 24 summarize the duration and persistence statistics for fog occurrences at HMS. Because of the relative proximity of the site to the Columbia River, it is ex pected that the freque ncy of occurrence, inte nsity and duration of fog would be somewhat greater than thes e data indicate (r efer also to 2.3.2.1.5).

Most fog in the Hanford region is of the radi ation type and hence occu rs mostly in conjunction with light wind, inversion or st able atmospheric conditions. The occurrence of fog at the site can therefore be considered as one visual indicator of poor atmospheric diffusion conditions.

Advection and frontal fogs occur occasionally at both HMS and the Tri-City stations of Richland and Pasco. In addition, at Richland and Pasco, there are occasional occurrences of C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-21 steam fog from the Columbia Ri ver. These are not usually deep and many would be classified as ground fog.

Statistics on fog persistence are limited to those at HMS. Although most dense (visibility 1/4 mile or less) fogs do not la st longer than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, a few run for much longer periods as shown in Table 2.3-23. After a period of fog, there freque ntly follows a peri od of atmospheric stagnation with a low stratus overcast and light winds. Such conditions may persist for many days.

2.3.2.1.5 Stability Summaries For the purposes of comparison, the t (temperature difference) and sigma theta (standard deviation of the horizontal wind direction fluctuations) stability classifications which are used in diffusion studies at Hanfor d are given below with the t "Pasquill" and sigma theta classes identified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23:

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.23 Pasquill Class t/Z ( F/200 FT)

Sigma* Theta Extremely unstable A Less than -2.1 25.0 Moderately unstable B -2.1 to -1.9 20.0 Slightly unstable C -1.9 to -1.6 15.0 Neutral D -1.6 to -0.6 10.0 Slightly stable E -0.6 to 1.6 5.0 Moderately stable F 1.6 to 4.4 2.5 Extremely stable G greater than 4.4 1.7 HANFORD RESERVATION CLASSIFICATION

Pasquill Class t/Z ( F/200 FT) Sigma Theta Groupings

• • (Degrees) Very unstable Less than -2.5 greater than 22.5 Unstable -2.5 to -1.5 25.5 to 17.5 17.5 to 12.5

• Period of 15 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

• • Note that these sigma theta groupings do not necessarily correspond to any particular Hanford Stability Class on the left, i.e., there can be a maximum of 35 group combinations of t/Z and sigma theta although some combi nations are unlikely to occur.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-22 Neutral -1.5 to 0.5 12.5 to 7.5 7.5 to 3.75 Moderately Stable 0.5 to 3.5 3.75 to 2.1 Very Stable greater than 3.5 less than 2.1 Joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction by atmo spheric stability class (temperature difference and sigma theta combinations) for the first and second annual cycles of monitoring are presented in Section

2.3.3. Percent

frequency of occurrence of stability (t distribution) at CGS and HMS are given in Table 2.3-25. Although the heights over which t was measured are similar for both sites, it is observed in Table 2.3-25 that CGS experiences air of greater thermal stability than HMS. Th is discrepancy between si te stabilities may be accounted for because of terrain differences. The CGS site se rves as a drainage basin for relatively cool air (especially at night), resulting in strong thermal low-level stratification and the formation of persistent temperature inversi ons. This conclusion is strengthened by the observation that the difference between the sites is much more pronounced during July, August, September and October than during all other months. It is dur ing these months that pooling of relatively cool air is at a maximum due, partly, to mi nimum cloudiness and therefore, enhanced nocturnal cooling occurs at the ground. It is noted in Table 2.3-25 that the percent frequencies of stability types for both annual cycles of monitoring at CGS are very similar.

Frequencies of occurrence of t and sigma theta versus time of day for the first year of onsite meteorological measurements are given in Table 2.3-26 and 2.3-27. Although frequency of occurrence and duration of inversion conditions were not analyzed for the site, stagnation and inversion information contained in 2.3.1.2.1.5 and 2.3.2.1.5 for HMS should be representative for the site (except for the fact that the above data indi cates that CGS experiences a greater frequency of surface-based inversions than does HMS).

Figure 2.3-8 shows probabilities of inversion persistence at HMS from 1952-1969 (2).

2.3.2.2 Potential Influence of the Plant and Its Facilities on Local Meteorology

The shapes and sizes of the buildings erected on the plant s ite will produce a disturbed air flow which alters the initial distribution pattern a nd diffusion rates of plant release airborne contaminants. In the diffusion calcu lations this effect is considered.

Electrical power generation by steam turbines requires dissipation of large quantities of low grade thermal energy. Waste heat produced from the operation of CGS is dissipated by means of six circular mechanical draft cooling towe rs. These evaporative cooling towers release waste heat directly to the atmosphere in the fo rm of sensible and late nt heat. An extended visible plume consisting of li quid water droplets can occur principally during the winter months when periods of cold weather and high relative humidity prevail. Fogging is defined as occurring if visible plumes intersect the ground, buildings, or other elevated structures.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-23 Fog occurs naturally in this re gion, and any cooling to wer fog is an extension of the naturally occurring phenomenon. When air temperatures of 0°C or lower prevail, the additional potential exists for icing on thes e surfaces. At times, small cumulus clouds could form above or remote from the plant, de pending on the atmospheric temperat ure and moisture conditions in the first several thousand feet above the cooling towers. No significant environmental or atmospheric impacts arising from CGS cooling tower operation have been observed or are foreseen based on dispersion meteorological studies performed by Battelle Northwest Laboratories (Reference 2.3-22). Details covering potential environmental impacts arising from CGS cooling tower operation are gi ven in the CGS Environmental Report.

2.3.2.3 Local Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases

The regional long term meteorologica l conditions provided in Section 2.3.1.2 are applicable for use in establishing the plant design and st ation operating bases.

Except for the high wet bulb episode experienced at CG S during July 1975 (refer to 2.3.1.2.3), none of the local short term meteorological data presented in 2.3.2.1 proved to be more seve re in terms of the design and operation of CGS than those presented in 2.3.1.2. Data collected since January 1, 1984 form the revised long-term design and operating basis for dispersion calculation.

2.3.2.4 Topograp hic Description As shown in Figures 2.1

-1 and 2.1-2 , the plant is located at a grade elev ation of 441 feet MSL in a basin area formed by the Saddle Mountains to the northwest, bluf fs and hills rising to about 900 feet MSL to the north and east, the Horse Heaven Hills to the south and the Rattlesnake Hills and Yakima, Umtanum and Manastach ridges to the west. Topographic cross-sections plotted out to 10 kilometers by sector fr om the plant are given in Figure 2.3-9. Except for the cliffs toward the east across the Columbia River, the region within this circumference is basically flat and featureless and slopes gradually toward the Columbia River. Additional details regarding the regional topography and geology are given in 2.5. The effects of regional topography on local meteorology are discussed in 2.3.1.1 , 2.3.2.1.1 and 2.3.2.1.5. The need to consider plume height relative to land elevations has been obviated by the assumption of a ground-le vel release for the accident and ro utine station release cases which are presented in 2.3.4 and 2.3.5. 2.3.3 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT PROGRAM The permanent onsite meteorol ogical data collection system in use since January 23, 1974 consisted of a 240 ft main tower, an auxiliary seven ft instrument mast, sensors wi th associated C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 54 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT April 2000 LDC N-9 9-0 0 0 2.3-24 electronics and recording devices , and a meteorological shelter. A 23 ft onsite temporary tower was also used during the period April 1, 1972 thr ough August 31, 1974.

The Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific No rthwest Laboratories, had been conducting a continuing two year program of acquisition, pr ocessing, and analysis of meteorological data for Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Sta tion in a contractual arrangement with Burns and Roe, Inc.

The first and second annual cycles of reliable meteorological dat a were collected during the periods April 1, 1974 through Ma rch 31, 1975 and April 1, 1975 through March 31, 1976, respectively. The accuracy of these data had been established primarily through calibrations conducted at quarterly intervals as required through a formal pr ogram of quality assurance. The data were examined for mete orological reasonableness, after corrections were applied per the calibration Reports, through computer edit programs. No data were found to be unreasonable. The annual summari es were compared with th e monthly summaries and all were found to be consistent.

The computer summarization programs (identical for monthly and annual purposes) were tested at quarterly interv als by application to dummy data per the quality assurance program. (23) The computer calculation programs for x/Q were similarly tested. Comparisons between CGS meteorol ogical data and concu rrently measured and historical HMS data have been presented in 2.3.2.1.

2.3.3.1 Permanent Onsite Meteorological Tower and Instru mentation Characteristics

The meteorological tower, which is located approximately 2,500 feet west of the CGS plant site with its base at 455' MSL, cons ists of a 240 ft high primary to wer with a five ft mast extending above it. The primary tower is triangular in shape and of open lattice c onstruction to minimize tower interference with meteorological measurem ents. Wind and temperature measurements were made at the top of the mast and at the 33 ft level. The dew point temperature was measured at the 33 ft level. At the lower le vel the instruments were mounted on an eight ft horizontal boom extending southwes t of the tower. Wind and te mperature measurements were also made at the top of a seven ft mast whic h was located approximatel y 80 feet southwest of the 245 ft tower.

Wind speed measurements were made us ing conventional cup anemometers (Climet Instruments, Model 011-1 Wind Speed Transmitter) which have a response threshold of about 0.6 mph and a distance c onstant of less than five feet. Ov er a calibrated range of 0.6 to 90 mph the accuracy of these in struments is +/- 1% or 0.15 mph (whichever is greater).

Data collection on the 240 foot and seven f oot towers was terminat ed on June 1, 1976 subsequent to the collection of two years of reliable tower data ending March 31, 1976, required for the CGS FSAR. Data collecti on on the Primary and ba ckup towers began on July 1, 1984.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-25 Wind direction measurements were made using lightwe ight vanes (Climet Instruments, Model 012-10 Wind Direction Transmitter).

The response threshold of thes e vanes is about 0.75 mph, and their damp ing ratio and distance constant are approximately 0.4 and 3.3 feet, respectively. Dual potentiometers in the Wind Direction Transmitter produce an electrical signal covering 540° in azimuth with an accuracy of +/-3°. In addition, electroni cs had been included to provid e signals which were proportional to the standard deviation of the wind di rection fluctuations at each level.

Temperature instrumentation had been installed to provide measurements of both the ambient air temperature at the 245, 33 and 7 ft levels, as well as the te mperature differences between these levels. The ambient air temperature and the temperature difference measurement systems were independent of each other to provide for reliability. Atmosphe ric stability delta - T classes were determined solely on the basis of the data from the electronic differencing bridge and not by subtracting the am bient air temperature measur ements. All temperature measurements for both systems were made in aspirated radiation shields (Climet Instruments Model 016-1 or -2) using platinum resistance temperature detectors (Rosemount Engineering Co., Model 104 MB6ABCA). These instruments pr ovided an ambient temperature range from

-30°F to +/-130°F and a temper ature difference range of

+/-15°F. The accuracy of the instruments is +/-.09°F in the measurement of temperatures and +/-0.18°F in the measurement of temperature differences.

The dewpoint temperature was me asured at the 33 ft level of th e tower using a lithium chloride dewpoint sensor (Climet Instru ments, Model 015-12) housed in an aspirate d radiation shield (Climet Instruments Model 016-2). Precipitation was measured at ground level using a tipping bucket rain gage (Meteorology Research Incorporated, Model 302) located about 40 feet west of the main tower. This instrument is accurate to within 1% at rainfall rates up to 3 in./hr and has a resolution of 0.01 in. The instrument bu ilding provided a semi-controlled environment near the tower to house the instrument electroni cs and record the data.

Analog strip chart and digital magnetic tape recorde rs were used to provide redundant data recording capability. The primary data recording system was a seven-track digital magnetic tape recorder (Kennedy, Model 1600) which used 1/2 inch tape. Logarithmically time-averaged wind speed, wind direction, temperature, temperature difference and dewpoint temperature signals were recorded at five minute intervals. The time c onstant of the averaging process was five to ten minutes. The standard deviation of wind dir ection fluctuations during the preceding five minutes at each level and the total precipitation were recorded along with the wind and temperature information. All data, except th e wind direction standard d eviations, were also recorded on strip charts which provided a ba ckup data record to enhance data retrievability.

In addition, since the strip charts contained an essentially inst antaneous record of the signal from each instrument, they provided a rapid means of identifying inst rument malfunctions and were useful in system calibration. These strip charts and magnetic tapes were changed weekly.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDC N-0 1-0 7 2 2.3-26 In summary, the total system ac curacies for the measured mete orological parameters meet or exceed the following specifications:

air temperature

+/-0.5°C temperature difference +/-0.2°C

humidity (dew point) +/-2.8°C

wind speed 0.5 mph from 0.5 to 5 mph, +/-10% of reading above 5 mph per RG 1.97, Rev. 3.

wind direction +/-5°

These are verified by the e nd-to-end calibrations. Data recovery was better than 90%.

2.3.3.2 Quality Assurance Program

To ensure the quality of the meteorological data collected by the monitoring system, an extensive quality assurance program had been instituted. This program covered all phases of meteorological monitoring from th e initial instrument acquisition th rough the analysis of data.

Periodic checks and calibration of the instrument systems and individual components had been instituted. These periodic chec ks ranged from daily inspection of the strip charts to semiannual calibration of the complete sy stem. All checks, calibrations and maintenance were fully documented, including traceability of test and ca libration equipment to the National Bureau of Standards where necessary. Once collected, the data were protected from loss to the maximum extent possible; the di gital tapes were examined to identify possible instrumentation malfunctions; and the data were then copied onto tw o master tapes. The original weekly tape and one master tape were stored in vaults fo r safekeeping while the second master tape was used in the preparation of data summaries. Finally, to ensure proper operation of computer hardware and software, all computer programs used to summarize or analyze the data were checked quarterly using a standard data input. The computer output from these tests was then saved to document computer operation.

The various phases of the quality assurance prog ram pertaining to the two years of permanent onsite meteorological monitori ng and data processing are di scussed in the following subsections.

2.3.3.2.1 Data Recovery During April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1976

The meteorological data acquisition system wa s put into operation during January 1974. Outages in the digital system precluded an in itiation date for the acquisition of reliable data prior to April 1, 1974 because the processing of an inordinate amount of dat a from strip charts C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.3-27 would have been required. Th e data utilized in the production of the monthly and annual summaries have been obtained exclusively with the primary data recording equipment (magnetic tape digital syst em) since August 1, 1974.

Recourse to data recorded on st rip charts was required at tim es prior to August 1974 to assure, as viewed at the time, a recovery rate of 90% repr esentative data as required by Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.23. The percentage s of monthly data read from strip charts is listed below:

April 1974 - 23.3%

May 1974 - 8.3%

June 1974 - 49.5% (W/S 33' - 59.1%)

July 1974 - 1.6%

From routine and anticipated causes (system maintenance and calibration) modest data losses were experienced on the order of 2% and 1.2% for the first and second annual cycles of onsite data collection respectively. A comparable amo unt, for some of the meteorological quantities, was caused by circumstances b eyond Battelle's control (power outages, delay in receipt of spare parts, etc.). The per centages of missing annual data for various meteorological quantities are listed below:

April 1, 1974-March 31, 1975 April 1, 1975

March 31, 1976 Wind Speed 33' 4.0% 2.7%

Wind Direction 33' 4.0% 1.5%

Dry Bulb Temperature 33' 2.5% 1.2%

Wet Bulb, Dewpoint Temperature 33' 2.7% 1.2%

Differential Temperature 33' - 245' 3.1% 1.5%

These percentages are representative of missing data for all meteorological quantities except precipitation. During the first annual cycle of monitoring, data recovery for precipitation was

100%. Precipitation data recovery was co mplete during the second annual cycle of monitoring, except possibly dur ing December 1975 when a sand pl ug was discovered in the rain gauge funnel. As a result, it was estimated that less than 0.1 inch of precipitation was not recorded during that month. For the first annual cycle of monitoring, the data recovery rate was 96% or better for all meteorological quantitie s; this rata was 97% or better during the second annual cycle of monitoring.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-28 2.3.3.2.2 Maintenance and Calibration

Assurance of quality data rests primarily with the calibrations performed at quarterly intervals and reported for July and Octobe r 1974; January, April, July and October 1975; and January and April 1976.

All evidence to date obtained through formal calibrations and routine daily and weekly

inspection had demonstrated that the meteorological system rema ined electronically stable in terms of obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet the requirements in Regulatory Guide 1.23.

The calibration corrections required are tabulated in the response to NRC question 6.4 on the FER. The calibrations established any system inaccuracies by compar isons to standards.

These inaccuracies were corrected by appropriately adjusting the data at the data processing stage as opposed to adjusting the system electronics. The calibrations before and after each calibration period were used to determine if corre ctions were required to account for drift or if offset had occurred. No drift corr ections were required. The offsets were discussed in the FER response. For corrections that were not constant throughout the range of a given parameter, a calibration table or curve was used to correct the data. Calibration corrections were applied as part of the computer programs used to edit and translate the data from the original raw-data tapes to a master f ile of hourly values.

2.3.3.2.3 Data Pro cessing and Analysis

For the two years (1974-1976) of onsite FSAR me teorological monitoring at CGS, all data (magnetic tape and strip chart wher e required) were r un through computer edit programs. No data were found to be unre asonable except for known ca uses as documented in Nonconformance Reports. Data corrections, pe r the Calibration Reports, were applied in the computer programs. Summarization of data ha s been accomplished only at such times as calibration information was available to bracket in time the acquired data.

The data for each hour is represen ted by an average of the data for the last 30 minutes in the hour. The averaging period of 30 minutes was select ed for consistency with

1) the data used to formulate the Hanford Diffusion Model used for routine and accident dose calculations, 2) the recommendations in Regulatory Guide 1.23, and 3) computational economy. The only

exception was wind direction which was averaged over one-hour to facilitate the formulation of wind direction persistence summaries.

One thirty-minute period per hour is consid ered adequate for climatological summaries consisting of averages of many hours. In addition, x/Qs based on thirty-minute averages will be conservative for estimates of the one-hour averages. A ll data products were based on these "hourly" averages.

Wet bulb from the permanent tower was obtained from standard psych rometric formulas presented in the Smithsonian Me teorological Tables, 1971 issue.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-29 The above descriptions relate to data co llected and used in FSAR submittals through Amendment #36. Data collec tion and processing since July 1, 1983 is described in 2.3.3.2.4. The Kennedy Tape Recorder has been replaced with a floppy disk recorder for increased reliability.

In several of the monthly summary reports, the computer programs as applied to dummy data have been compiled as called for in the Quality Assurance Manual (Reference 2.3-23) for the purpose of documenting pr oper programming and proper computer performance.

These computer computations have been verified with hand calc ulations made with the dummy data. The computational programs for x/Q were similarly tested.

2.3.3.2.4 Meteorological Monitoring Program During Plant Operation

The meteorological tower, which is located appr oximately 2500 ft west of the CGS plant site with its base at 455 ft msl consists of a 240-ft high primary tower with a 5-ft mast extending above it. This tower is triangular in shape and of open lattice construction to minimize tower interference with meteorological measurements. Wind and temperature measurements are made at the top of the mast and at the 33-ft elevation by duplicate sets of instruments. One set of instruments is the primary measurement sy stem and the other set constitutes the backup instrumentation. The lower elevation wind speed/direction instruments are mounted on a horizontal boom, extending southwest of the tower.

Wind speed and wind direction measurements are made with a single instrument package that combines a wind speed propeller on the leading (upwind) end of the instrument and a wind direction vane, or tail, on the opposite end. Wind speed meas urement range is 0.5 to 90 mph with a threshold sensitivity of about 1 mph. The wind direction measurements are made by the wind passing over the wind vane portion of the instrument. In addition, electronic modules process the data from these in struments and provide output data which is proportional to the standard deviation of the wind direction fluctuations over 15 minutes.

Temperature instrumentation provi des measurements of the ambi ent air temperature at the 245 and 33-ft elevations. Temperature measurements are made in aspirated radiation shields using platinum RTDs. These instruments provide an ambient temperature range from -50°F to

+150°F. Each set of RTDs (one from 33 ft le vel and one from 245 ft level) are calibrated together in the same temperature bath and electronic modules process the data from these instruments to provid e a temperature difference range of +/-15°F.

The relative humidity is measured at the 33-ft elevation of the tower using an intercap sensor with a range of 0 to 100% RH housed in an aspirated radiation shield. Precipitation is measured at ground level using a tipping bucket rain gauge located about 40-ft west of the main tower. The barometric pr essure is measured by a pressure transmitter located inside the C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 61 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2011 LDCN-10-001 2.3-30 Met Tower building. The Met Tower building provides a semi-controlled environment near the tower to house the instrument electronics. Signal conditioning is provided in the Met Tower by two GE FANUC PLC controllers, one for the primary instrumentation and one for the backup instrumentation. The primary controller feeds data to the Supervisory System and the PDIS via the LAN. The backup controller feeds data only to the PDIS via the LAN. Information will be available to all locations for both the primary and backup instruments on the LAN. The backup system does not provide da ta for the barometric pressure or the rain gauge. Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, temperature difference and relative humidity signals are averaged by the c ontrollers using a 15 minute time constant device before sending the information to the control room. In the control room ar e three recorder s which record 245-ft and 33-ft wind speed, wind direction, delta temperature, and ambient temperature at 33-ft elevation. The system accuracies for the measured meteorological parameters are demonstrated to meet or exceed the following specifications by performance of instrument loop calibrations:

Air temperature

+/-0.5°C (+/-0.9°F) Temperature difference +/-0.2°C (+/-0.36°F)

Humidity (dew point) +/-2.8°C (+/-5.0°F)

Wind speed

+/-0.50 mph from 0.5 to 5 mph, +/-10% of reading above 5 mph pe r RG 1.97, Rev. 3.

Wind direction

+/-5.0° This data is processed by the Supervisory System which forms the primary communication vehicle for the meteorological system. The supe rvisory system located at the meteorological tower building and the control room digitizes and multiplexes th e data to the control room where it is restored to analog format and sent to recorders and the PPCRS, as required, on a real-time basis. The data input to the superv isory system is 15-minute average analog values. Longer period averages will also be computed fo r trend analysis and re port generation. These data are routed to satisfy display and proce ssing requirements of the onsite technical support centers (TSC) and the emergency operations facility (EOF). The primary meteorological tower data is stored by the plant data acqui sition system. Instru ment calibrations and maintenance procedures meet the data recovery and system accuracy requirements of

Regulatory Guide 1.23 ex cept as noted above.

The Emergency Dose Projection system provi des redundant data commu nication paths with remote access and redundant power sources as required for routine or emergency preparedness support. The near real time access to both th e primary and backup mete orology systems, via the supervisory system or the LAN, thus sati sfies the emergency prep aredness requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23.

These two systems are designed to meet or exceed data unavailabi lity statements of Regulatory Guide 1.23. If offsite meteorological data is needed, data can be obtained from a network of meteorological towers located on the Hanford Site using methods described in the Emergency C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-07-044 2.3-31 Preparedness Plan. The accuracy, calibration, and reliability of all data not directly controllable by Energy Northwest is determined by the private/governmental controlling agency. 2.3.3.3 Other Meteorological Measurement Programs Considered for the Data Comparisons 2.3.3.3.1 CGS Temporary Tower A temporary 23-ft onsite tower was used during the period Ap ril 1, 1972, through August 31, 1974, to obtain data input for CG S environmental studies and to provide a comparative overlap with the initiall y measured permanent tower data.

The temporary tower was located in the vicinity of the permanent towers with its base at approximately 448 ft msl. Wind data from the temporary tower were obtained at the 23-ft level while temperature data were acquired at the 3-ft level. Wet bulb data from the temporary tower were establishe d from techniques and dat a contained in the U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau Office Document, Relative Humidity and Dewpoint Table. As a special quality assurance program was not initiate d for the temporary tower installation, it is not possible to assert that this tower's dat a complied with the requirements contained in Regulatory Guide 1.23.

2.3.3.3.2 Hanford Me teorological Station The Hanford Site maintains a network of mete orological towers, whic h can be accessed for data by telephone or electronic form.

2.3.3.4 Joint Stability - Wind Frequency Summaries Joint frequencies of wind direction and wind speed by atmospheri c stability class (sigma theta by t classes), collected at the 33 ft level of the permanent tower during the period from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1989 are presented in Table 2.3-28A. The sigma theta/t stability classification approach (see 2.3.2.1.5) has been used by Battelle to maintain consistency with the longer term HMS data to which existing data is compared and to satisfy the data requirements of the Hanford Diffusion Model (HDM) the HDM requires joint measurements of sigma theta and t for the more rest rictive stable diffusi on cases and utilizes the Sutton method with locally derived paramet ers for neutral and unsta ble cases (21). The HDM differs from the standard NRC diffusion m odels as a result of the incorporation of empirically derived diffusion co efficients based on historical experiments performed at Hanford. As a result of the extensive experimental data that were used in deriving the HDM, itis appropriate to consider this model when performing diffusion anal ysis at the Hanford Reservation.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-32 In 2.3.2.1 , comparisons between measured CGS ons ite data and simultaneously recorded and historical HMS data illust rated the following differ ences between sites:

a. The CGS site experienced a small ai r moisture enhancem ent during the first annual cycle of monitoring. During th e second annual cycle, the CGS site experienced air of essentia lly the same moisture cont ent as did the HMS site.

b. The CGS site experiences a biom odal wind direction distribution from approximately south and also northwest.

At HMS, the direction distribution displays a single peak at approximat ely west northwest to northwest.

c. The CGS site experiences air of greater thermal stability than does HMS.

Reasons for these differences were given in 2.3.2.1.

2.3.4 SHORT

TERM DIFFUSION ESTIMATES

2.3.4.1 Objective

In this section brief descriptions of the sources, the receptors, and the methodologies used to calculate the air dispersion factors, /Q, for the Exclusion Ar ea Boundary (EAB), the Low Population Zone (LPZ), and the control room are presented.

2.3.4.2 Exclusion Area Boundary The EAB is located at a distan ce of 1950 m (approxima tely 1.2 miles) from the site. The /Qs were calculated using site-s pecific meteorological data from 1996 to 1999, (Reference 2.3-38). The Joint Frequency Distributions (JFDs), Table 2.3-28 , were used as an i nput to the computer code PAVAN, (Reference 2.3-25) and the /Q results are presented in Table 2.3-37. The /Q values at the EAB are calculated for ea ch hour of data. Th e cumulative probability distribution of these values are determined for each of the wind direction sectors.

Two distributions are calculat ed, Pasquill-Gifford (P-G) with meander sigmas and desert sigmas (includes meander). The distributions represent the annual prob abilities that the given /Q values will be exceeded in each wind direction sector at the exclusion area distance.

Table 2.3-34 incorporates the P-G meander effect and Table 2.3-33 has desert sigmas. From each of the sixteen sector distributions, the /Q value which is exceeded 0.5 percent of the total time was selected.

This value was selected based on th e percentage of total observations rather than the percentage of observations that the wind direction is within the appropriate sector. These 16 sector /Q values are given in Tables 2.3-33 through 2.3-34. The highest of these sixteen values is defi ned as the maximum sector /Q value.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-33 2.3.4.3 Low Population Zone The LPZ is located at a distan ce of 4827 m (approxi mately 3 miles) from the site. The /Qs were calculated using site sp ecific meteorological data fr om 1996 to 1999, (Reference 2.3-38), the JFDs, Table 2.3-28 , were used as an input to the computer code PAVAN, (Reference 2.3-25) and the /Q results are presented in Table 2.3-37. The sector /Q values at the LPZ have been estimat ed for various fixed time intervals of a 30-day period. These time intervals are 0 - 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> s, 2 - 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, 8 - 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and 1 - 30 days. The estimates for these time periods are made by interpolation on a log-log plot of the two-hour and annual average values as desc ribed by Regulatory Guide 1.145. These interpolations are carried out for the value wh ich is exceeded 5 per cent of the time, and

0.5 percent

of the time. The in terpolations are displayed in Tables 2.3-35 (Desert) through 2.3-36 (P-G, meander). For these interpolations the 2-hour values are a ssumed equivalent to the 1-hour values. These depicti ons and interpolation schemes ar e identical to those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.145.

2.3.4.4 Control Room The control room air dispersion factors /Q were calculated usi ng the 1996 to 1999 site-specific hourly meteorol ogical data, (Reference 2.3-37). The meteorological data and the input parameters were used as input to the computer code ARCON96, (Reference 2.3-36), and the /Q results are presented in Table 2.3-37. 2.3.4.5 Description of Sources There are 4 sources at CGS that could release radioactivity to the e nvironment following an accident. These sources are described below:

a. The roofline source is a vent (short st ack) on top of the reactor building at a height of 70 m (approximately 229 ft) above the ground through which routine releases take place. Following an accident, the exhaust air from the reactor building passes through the SGT filtrati on system before exiting through the roofline stack. This sour ce is treated as a ground level point source in the /Q calculations.

b. The reactor building railroad bay doors are located at the ground level on the eastside wall of the reactor building. It is assumed that some leakage to the environment takes plac e through these doors.

c. The reactor building walls from the 606 ft level to the 670 ft level (top of reactor building) are made of metal sheets and therefore they are assumed to be C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-34 a diffuse source capable of leaking radioactive materials to the atmosphere, this source is also treated as a ground level release source.

d. The Turbine Building Exhaust System (TBES) is a set of four circular vents (short stacks) located on top of the radwas te building roof. Air from the turbine building is exhausted to the at mosphere through these 4 vents.

2.3.4.6 Control Room Intakes There are three intakes at CGS which draw air into the control room during normal operation as well as post accident. A description of these intakes is given below:

a. Local intake point: The local intake poi nt is a vent located on the west side of the radwaste building wall at an elevation of 527 ft (26.5 m above the ground).

b. Remote intakes: there are two ground level remote intake points which are approximately 180 degrees from each other. One remote intake is located to the north-west side of the turbine building and is labeled remote-1, the other is located to the south-east side of the reactor building and is labeled remote-2.

2.3.4.7 Calculations Formulations for calculating short term /Q values have been de veloped for licensing of nuclear power plants and are described in Regulatory Guide 1.145, (Reference 2.3-26) "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants." For the CGS configuration, it is assumed that accidental releases are made at ground level. This assumption provides a conserva tive estimate of downwind /Q values. NRC code PAVAN (Reference 2.3-25) is used to produce dispersi on estimates with the desert sigma option enabled.

Based on the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.145 the /Q values are calculated using three separate equations. The particular e quation which is used de pends upon the existing meteorological conditions. The equations are:

(1) )2A / yz(U 1Q / 10+= (2) ) yz3(U 1Q / 10= (3) yzU 1Q / 10=

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-35 Where /Q is relative concentration (sec/m

3) is 3.14159 U 10 is the wind speed at th e 10 meter level (m/sec) y is the horizontal desert diffusion parameter (m) determined from downwind distance and stability category.

z is the vertical desert di ffusion parameter (m) determined from downwind distance and stability category.

Y represents plume meander and building wake effects (m) and is a function of stability category, wind speed, and downwind distance.

A is the smallest vertical plane cross-sectional area of the reactor building (m 2). During neutral or stable atmos pheric stability conditions, the resu lts of all three equations are used to determine dosages. The values from Equations (1) and (2) are compared and the larger is selected. This value is compared with that computed in Equation 3 and the lower value is selected as the appropriate /Q value.

During all other meteorological conditions (unstable and/or wi nd speeds of 6 m/sec or more), only equations (1) and (2) are considered. The appropriate /Q value is the larger of the two.

Values of Y and z, the horizontal and vertical di ffusion parameters are taken from Regulatory Guide 1.145 for the applicable stability category and downwind distance. For extremely stable condition (Category G), the following equations are applied:

Y(G) = 2/3 Y(F) z(G) = 3/5 z(F) 2.3.5 LONG-TERM (ROUTINE) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES

2.3.5.1 Objectives

The joint wind direction and wind speed by at mospheric stability cla ss data presented in Subsection 2.3.3 was used to assess annual average normalized concentrations, X/Q, for 16 radial sectors extending from the site boundary to a distance of 50 miles from the source.

Tables 2.3-38 provides X/Q and D/Q concentrations fo r a mix mode release assuming desert C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 2.3-36 sigmas no decay, no plume deple tion, recirculation, and a building wake (building height -

70.4 m). D/Q is normalized deposition.

2.3.5.2 Calculations

The calculational techniques used are consistent with the gui dance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111 "Methods for Estimating Atmos pheric Transport and Disp ersions of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Re leases from Light-Water-Cooled Re actors". The joint frequency data presented in Subsection 2.3.3 were used in conjunction with the following equation to obtain X/Q values at appropriate downwind di stance in each of the 16 sectors.

()()()(,).exp ()./x Q f h x Rxxuxx Dijij e zj fxizj=+2032 2 05 2 2 2 2 12 Where: (,)x Q = average effluent concentration in Ci/m 3 normalized by source release rate (Ci/sec) at distan ce x and direction k.

x = downwind distance from release point.

u i = midpoint value of ith wind speed class.

h e = effective plume height.

zj(x) = vertical standard desert deviation of effluent spread at distance x for the jth stability class.

R fx = factor to account for air recirculation and stagnation.

f ijk = joint probability of the ith wind speed class, jth stability, class, and kth wind direction.

= 3.1416

D = maximum building height of adjacent buildings (D = 70.4 m)

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 2.3-37 The building wake correction Equation 1 must not reduce the X/Q estim ate by more than a factor of 3 or

()2 2 2 0512312xjx Dzjx ()./()/+ Equation 1 assumes a long-term c ontinuous release whose effluent is distributed evenly across a 22.5° sector. The release was assumed to be ground level (i.e., he = 0 in Equation 1). Computer code X0QD0Q, with the Desert si gma option enabled described in NUREG-0324, was used to make two se ts of calculations.

The nearest residences where maximum individual doses with single sector contributions occur at distances of 4.0 miles ENE (Ringold) and 4.2 miles ESE (Taylo r Flats) of CGS. The annual average /Q values for these locations are calculated in Table 2.3-38c , 38f and 39c , 39f. The Columbia bluffs rise to an elevation of 878 ft just south of Tayl or Flat. If it is considered that the low level sigma Z is less than 100 m out to 6 km for the P-G stab ility classes D-G, which are prevalent most of the winters and that low-level winds deflect either north or south near the bluffs (Reference 2.3-2), it is estimated that the total doses for these locations may be once again as large due to cont ributions of favorably oriented wind sectors.

The total dose in the channeling area of the Columbia River should include contributions from four other sectors with deflect ed winds and other channeling effects. The individual doses in that location could be twice as large as for th e single sector, constant wind computations. The drift from the cooling towers shoul d remove some of the effluent and deposit it on the site with the salts and counteract the blu ff effect. The mechanical dra ft cooling towers should entrain part of the effluent, lift it with the plume and thus also make the /Q values over-predictive.

Reasons for these differences were given in Subsection 2.3.2.1.

The results reported by St art and Wendell ("Regional Efflu ent Dispersion Calculation Considering spatial and Temporal Meteorological Variation," Pr eprint volume, Symposium on Atmospheric Diffusion and Air Pollution of the American Meteorological Society, September 9-13, 1974) indicate an average value at these di stances of about 0.65 and a minimum single point value of about 1.75. If these factors are multipli ed by the fraction of plume remaining at the distances in question, about 0.75, to account for the conservatism of the nondepleting model used to arrive at the dose estimates provided in 5.2 of the CGS Environmental Report, it is found that the most critical dose of 9.2 mrem to a child's thyroid (at Taylor Flat) is still within the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I de sign objective limit of 15 mrem.

For example, 1.75 x 0.75 x 9.2 = 12.1 mrem. This value would still be conservative because the above recirculation factors do not account fo r the existence of a bluff line immediately downwind of Taylor Flat which will under the mo re stable conditions turn the plume before it reaches Taylor Flat. This effect would further reduce the effective recirculation factor.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 2.3-38 At the nearest point of the ne arest population center, about 9 m iles, the average recirculation factor value from Start and Wendell, 1974, appe ars to be about 0.3 with the maximum single point value about 0.8. In addition to this eff ect, the effect of topographic channeling has been evaluated by conservatively hypothesizing that under stable conditions that winds blowing anywhere from the east to we st (through north) sector might end up in the four sectors containing the majority of the population, SE through WSW (Pas co through Benton City).

Including the effects due to channeling resu lts in an estimated maximum factor of approximately 1.6. Applying the factors for re circulation and fracti on of plume remaining after deposition results in a ma ximum effective factor of (1.6 x 0.8 x 0.67 = 0.86) less than one.

It therefore appears reasonable to conclude that the methodology em ployed to estimate doses is sufficiently conservative for the subject site to ensure t hat the doses to individuals and the general population have not been substantially underestimated due to the inherent assumptions.

2.

3.6 REFERENCES

2.3-1 Baker, D. A., Diffusi on Climatology on the 100-N Area, Hanford Washington, Douglas United Nuclear Company, DUN-7841, Richland, Washington, January 1972.

2.3-2 Stone, W. A., et al.

Climatography of the Hanford Area, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1605, Richland, Washingt on, June 1972.

2.3-3 Stone, W. A.

Meteorological Instrumentation of the Hanford Area, General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, HW-62455, Richland, Washington, March 1964.

2.3-4 Phillips, E., Tri-City Area, Kennewi ck-Pasco-Richland, Washington Narrative Climatological Summary, Climatography of the United States No. 20-45, U.S. Department of Commer ce and Economic Development.

2.3-5 Federal Meteorol ogical Handbook No. 1, Surface Observations, U.S. Government Printi ng Office, January 1970.

2.3-6 Fujita, T., Estimate of Maximum Wind Speed of Tornadoes in Three Northwestern States, SMRP Research Pa per No. 92, University of Chicago, December 1970.

2.3-7 Jaech, J. L., Statistical Analysis of Tornado Data for the Three Northwestern States, Jersey Nuclear Company, Ri chland, Washington, December 1970.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 2.3-39 2.3-8 Daubek, H. G., Tornado History and a Discussion of the Tornado Warning System, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report to Jersey Nuclear Company, Richland, Washington, December 1970.

2.3-9 Thom, H. C. S., "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the United States,"

Journal for the Structural Division, ASCE, ST-7, July 1968, pp 1787-1801.

2.3-10 ASCE Task Committee Report, Wi nd Forces on Structures, Paper No. 3269, Vol. 126, 1961.

2.3-11 Larson, L. B., Air Pollution Potential Over Southeastern Washington, U.S. Weather Bureau, Walla Walla, Washington, May 1970 (unpublished Presentation).

2.3-12 Holzworth, G. C., "Estimates of Mean Maximu m Depths in the Contiguous United States," Monthly Weather Re view, Vol. 92, pp 235-242, May 1964.

2.3-13 Hosler, C. R., "Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States," Monthly Weather Review, Vo

l. 89, pp 319-339, September 1961.

2.3-14 Huschke, R. E., ed., Glossary of Terms Frequently Used in Air Pollution, American Meteorological Society, Bo ston, Massachusetts , January 1968.

2.3-15 Jenne, D. E., Frequenc y Analysis of Some Climatological Extremes at Hanford, General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, Washington, April 1963.

2.3-16 Hilst, G. R., and Nickola, P. W., "On Wind Erosion of Small Particles,"

Bulletin of the American Meteorolog ical Society, Vol. 40, pp 73-77, February 1959.

2.3-17 Sehmel, G. A., and Lloyd, F. D., Airborne Dust Concentrations, Pacific Northwest Laboratories Annual Report for 1971 to the USAEC Division of Biology and Medicine, Vol.

II, Part 1, Atmospheric Sc iences, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1651, Richland, Washington, December 1972.

2.3-18 Bramson, P. E., and Corley, J. P.

Environmental Surve illance at Hanford for CY-1971, Battelle Northwest Labor atories, BNWL-1683, Richland, Washington, August 1972.

2.3-19 ANSI A58, 1-1972, "Building Code Requirement s for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures," Am erican National Standards Institute, 1972.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 2.3-40 2.3-20 Simpson, C. L., Computer Printouts of Meteorological Data from the HMS and Hanford No. 2 Sites, March 1-August 31, 1972, BNWL, September 1972.

2.3-21 PSAR WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1, August 1974 (D ocket No. 50-460).

2.3-22 Droppo, J. G. et al., Atmospheric Effects of Circul ar Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers at Washington P ublic Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plant Number Two, Final Report to Burns and Roe, Inc., November 1976.

2.3-23 Quality Assurance Program for the Acquisition, Processing, and Analysis of Meteorological Data for Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 2, Battelle Pacific Northw est Laboratories, Ri chland, Washington, April 1974.

2.3-24 Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev. 3, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports For Nuclear Power Plants, November 1978.

2.3-25 T. J. Bander, "PAVAN: An Atmos pheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design Basis Accidental Rele ases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations," NUREG/CR-2858 (November 1982).

2.3-26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979: Regulatory Guide 1.145, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," USNRC Office of Standards Development, Wash., D.C.

2.3-27 Gifford, F. A., 1975:

Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Environmental Pollution Applications. Lectures on Ai r Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses, American Meteorol ogical Society, pp. 35-38.

2.3-28 PSAR WPPSS Nuclear Pr oject No. 2, February 1973.

2.3-29 Fix, J. J., Enviro nmental Surveillance at Hanf ord for CY-1974, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1910, Richland, Washingt on, April 1975.

2.3-30 Orgill, M. M., G. A. Sehmel , and T. J. Bander, 1974: "Regional Wind Resuspension of Dust," Pacific Northw est Laboratory Annual Report for 1973, to the USAEC Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research, Part 3, Atmospheric Sciences, BN WL-1850, pp. 214-219.

2.3-31 Hagen, L. J. and N.

P. Woodruff, 1973: "Air Polluti on from Duststorms in the Great Plains," Atmos. E nviron., 7, pp. 323-332.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-41 2.3-32 Sehmel, G. A., 1976: "T he Influence of Soil Insertion on Atmospheric Particle Size Distributions," Pacific Northwes t Laboratory Annual Report to ERDA Division of Biomedical a nd Environmental Research, Part 3, Atmospheric Sciences, BNWL-200, pp.99-101.

2.3-33 A. Brandstetter of BN L to J. J. Verderber of Burns and Roe Inc., entitled "Hanford Duststorm Climatology Enviro nmental Studies for CGS," and dated December 2, 1977.

2.3-34 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1972: Regulatory Gu ide 1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs.

2.3-35 Briggs, G. A., 1973: "Diffusi on Estimation for Small Emissions in Environmental Research Laboratory," Air Resources Atmos. Turbc. and Diffusion Lab. 1973 Annual Repor t, ATDL-106, USDOC-NOAA.

2.3-36 NUREG-6331, "Atmos pheric Relative Concentra tions in Building Wakes,"

Revision 1, May 1997, ARCON96 RSICC Computer Code Collection November CCC-664.

2.3-37 Calculation NE-02-03-14, "Control Room /Q Using ARCON96 with 1996-1999 Meteorological Data."

2.3-38 Calculation N E-02-03-16, "Calculation of the EAB and LPZ /Q Using PAVAN with 1996-1999 Me teorological Data."

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-43 Table 2.3-1 Averages and Extremes of C limatic Elements at Hanford (Based on all Available Records to and Including the Year 1980)

PAGE 1 OF 2 TEMPERATURE (F) DEGREE DAYS (BASE 65F) PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 1912-1980 AVERAGES 1912-1980 EXTREMES DEGREE DAYS (BASE 65F) 1912-1980 TOTALS DAILY MAXIMUM DAILY MINIMUM HEATING 1945-1980 TOTALS COOLING 1960-1980 TOTALS SNOW, ICE PELLETS (SLEET)

DAILY MAXIMUM DAILY MINIMUM MONTHLY HIGHEST MONTHLY YEAR LOWEST MONTHLY YEAR RECORD HIGHEST YEAR RECORD LOWEST YEAR RECORD HIGHEST YEAR RECORD LOWEST YEAR MEAN MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MINIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MINIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MINIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MAX. IN 24 HOURS YEAR MEAN MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY YEAR MAX. IN 24 HOURS YEAR MAXIMUM DEPTH YEAR Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Year 36.6 45.4 56.5 66.2 75.5 83.2 91.8 89.3 79.6 65.4 48.4 39.4 64.8 21.9 27.3 33.7 40.0 47.8 55.3 61.0 59.2 50.8 40.6 31.3 26.0

41.2 29.3 36.3 45.1 53.1 61.7 69.3 76.4 74.3 65.2 53.0 39.8 32.7

53.0 42.5 44.5 49.8 59.6 68.8 75.4 81.8 81.5 71.7 59.0 46.0 38.5

81.8 1953 1958 1926 1934 1947 1922 1960 1967 1967 1952 1954 1957 July 1960 12.1 21.4 39.4 47.5 56.6 63.0 72.4 69.8 58.8 48.8 31.3 18.5

12.1 1950 1929 1955 1955 1933 1953 1963 1964 1926 1930 1955 1919 Jan 1950 72 71 83 95 103 110 115 113 102 90 75 69 115 1971 1924 1960 1934 1936+

1912 1939 1961 1976+

1933 1975 1980 July 1939 -2

-3 24 41 49 55 59 63 52 31 14 -3 -3 1950 1950 1960 1945 1918 1966 1966 1920 1934 1935 1955 1919 Feb 1950+ 53 55 54 60 70 81 82 81 72 60 52 56 82 1971 1932 1942 1956 1956 1924 1925 1961+

1955 1945+

1959+

1975 July 1925 -23

-23 6 12 23 33 39 40 25 6 27 -27 1934 1950 1955 1935 1954 1933 1979 1918 1926 1935 1955 1919 Dec 1919 1104 781 638 381 156 35 4 6 70 376 758 990 5299 1640 1147 794 522 258 90 22 32 179 479 1008 1224 1640 1950 1956 1955 1955 1977 1953 1955 1960 1972 1946 1955 1964 Jan 1950 694 576 476 253 36 3 0

0 10 200 567 822 0 1953 1958 1947 1977 1947 1938 1975+1979+1979+1952 1954 1957 Aug 1979+0 0

0 2 43 183 384 323 102 2 0

0 1039 0 0

0 24 94 310 518 508 216 10 0 0 518 ------

---

---

1977 1971 1969 1960 1967 1967 1971

---

---

July 1960 0 0

0 0

3 57 232 171 27 0 0

0 0 ------

---

---

1978+

1962 1980 1963 1964 1970 1977+

---

---

Apr 1978+ 0.92 0.60 0.37 0.39 0.48 0.54 0.15 0.24 0.31 0.56 0.85 0.89

6.30 2.47 3.08 1.86 1.22 2.03 2.92 0.81 1.36 1.34 2.72 3.05 2.53 3.08 1970 1940 1957 1969 1972 1950 1966 1977 1947 1957 1926 1931 Feb 1940 0.08 T 0 0

0 0

0 0 T 0 T 0.11 0 1977 1967 1942+

1933+

1931 1919 1939+

1955+

1976+

1917+

1976+

1976+

Aug 1955+ 1.08 1.24 0.59 0.58 1.39 1.50 1.25 0.89 0.82 1.91 0.78 1.00 1.91 1948 1916 1949 1980 1972 1934 1942 1977 1947 1957 1966 1958 Oct 1957 5.3 2.3 0.3 T T 0 0

0 0 T 1.4 3.9 13.2 23.4 26.0 4.2 T T 0 0

0 0 1.5 12.7 19.1 26.0 1950 1916 1951 1968+

1960

---

---

---

---

1973 1955 1964 Feb 1916 7.1 18.0 2.2 T T 0 0

0 0 1.5 8.3 5.4 18.0 1954 1916 1957 1968+

1960

---

---

---

---

1973 1978 1965 Feb 1916 12.0 24.5 2.3 0 0

0 0

0 0 1.5 9.1 12.1 24.5 1969 1916 1957

---

---

---

---

---

---

1973 1978 1964 Feb 1916 WIND (mph) RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%) SKY COVER (SCALE 0-10) SOLAR RADIATION (LANGLEYS)*

1945-1980 AVERAGES PEAK GUSTS 1946-1980 AVERAGES 1946-1980 EXTREMES 1946-1980 AVERAGES (SUNRISE TO SUNSET) 1953-1980 AVERAGES DAILY TOTALS 1953-1980 EXTREME DAILY TOTALS PREVAILING DIRECTION MEAN MONTHLY SPEEDS HIGHEST MONTHLY YEAR LOWEST MONTHLY YEAR SPEED DIRECTION YEAR MEAN HIGHEST MONTHLY YEAR LOWEST MONTHLY YEAR HIGHEST YEAR LOWEST YEAR MONTHLY HIGHEST MONTHLY YEAR LOWEST MONTHLY YEAR MONTHLY HIGHEST MONTHLY YEAR LOWEST MONTHLY YEAR HIGHEST MONTHLY YEAR LOWEST MONTHLY YEAR Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Year NW NW WNW WNW WNW WNW WNW WNW WNW WNW NW NW

WNW 6.4 7.1 8.5 9.0 8.9 9.2 8.7 8.0 7.5 6.6 6.1 6.1

7.7 10.3 10.8 10.7 11.1 10.5 10.7 9.6 9.1 9.2 9.1 8.2 8.3 11.1 1972 1976 1977+ 1972+ 1965+ 1949 1963 1946 1961 1946 1977 1968 Apr 1972+ 3.1 4.6 5.9 7.4 5.8 7.7 6.8 6.0 5.4 4.4 2.9 3.9

2.9 1955 1963 1958 1958 1957 1950+ 1955 1956 1957 1952 1956 1963+ Nov 1956 80 65 70 73 71 72 69 66 65 63 64 71 80 SW SW SW SSW SSW SW WSW SW SSW SSW SSW SW

SW 1972 1971 1956 1972 1948 1957 1979 1961 1953 1950 1949 1955 Jan 1972 76.4 70.7 55.9 46.9 43.0 39.7 32.2 35.6 41.6 56.8 73.6 80.0 54.3 88.8 86.9 65.9 64.5 61.9 53.5 40.5 47.8 55.5 74.2 88.7 90.5 90.5 1960 1963 1950 1963 1948 1950 1955 1976 1977 1962 1979 1950 Dec 1950 60.0 54.0 44.0 36.9 31.2 30.0 21.9 24.5 33.2 42.5 62.8 69.0 21.9 1963 1967 1965 1966 1966 1949 1959 1967 1974 1952 1976 1968 July 1959 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 1980+ 1980+ 1979+ 1978+ 1978+ 1977+ 1972 1972+ 1978+ 1980+ 1980+ 1980+ Dec 1980+ 13 14 12 9 7 10 6 7 10 10 16 26 6 1963 1962 1965+ 1954 1953 1964+ 1951 1951 1962+ 1952+ 1976+ 1972 July 1951 7.9 7.6 6.8 6.4 5.9 5.3 2.9 3.4 4.1 5.8 7.7 8.1 6.0 9.2 9.3 8.5 8.1 7.7 7.0 4.7 5.9 6.7 8.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 1978 1980 1978 1963 1977+

1950 1976 1968 1978 1975 1972 1962 Feb 1980 4.3 5.9 4.9 3.7 4.5 2.8 0.9 0.6 1.4 3.9 6.2 6.4 0.6 1949 1964 1965 1951 1945 1961 1953 1955 1975 1952 1957 1978 Aug 1955 116 194 335 469 569 627 650 548 415 262 130 89 367 136 238 388 535 634 698 714 613 463 303 180 116 714 1973 1970 1965 1973 1970 1960 1973 1955 1975 1976 1957 1970 July 1973 78 128 293 374 472 537 588 475 326 216 97 57 57 1978 1980 1978 1963 1980 1980 1955 1968 1977 1975 1979+ 1980+ Dec 1980+277 422 542 704 838 821 808 721 591 434 295 196 838 1969 1958 1968 1972 1977 1971 1974 1957 1970 1973 1971 1972 May 1977 16 21 44 75 67 112 118 107 61 33 14 9 9 1976+

1976 1979 1974 1962 1965 1972 1959 1957 1974 1969 1973 Dec 1973 EXTREME AVERAGES OR TOTALS AND YEAR OR SEASON OF OCCURRENCE 1912-1980 TEMPERATURE AVERAGES (F) HIGHEST ANNUAL 56.2 (1958+)

LOWEST ANNUAL 50.2 (1929)

HIGHEST WINTER (D-J-F) 41.1 (1933-34)

LOWEST WINTER 24.2 (1948-49)

HIGHEST SPRING (M-A-M) 58.2 (1947)

LOWEST SPRING 48.0 (1955)

HIGHEST SUMMER (J-J-A) 78.2 (1958)

LOWEST SUMMER 70.2 (1980)

HIGHEST FALL (S-O-N) 56.6 (1963) LOWEST FALL 49.5 (1978)

1912-1980 PRECIPITATION TOTALS (IN.)

GREATEST ANNUAL 11.45 (1950)

LEAST ANNUAL 2.99 (1976)

SNOW, ICE PELLETS (SLEET)

GREATEST SEASONAL 43.6 (1915-16)

LEAST SEASONAL 0.3 (1957-58)

1945-1980 WIND SPEED AVERAGE (MPH)

HIGHEST ANNUAL 8.3 (1968+)

LOWEST ANNUAL 6.3 (1957)

1945-1980 RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE (%)

HIGHEST ANNUAL 58.9 (1978)

LOWEST ANNUAL 49.4 (1967)

1945-1980 SKY COVER AVERAGES (SUNRISE TO SUNSET, SCALE 0-10)

HIGHEST ANNUAL 6.6 (1978+)

LEAST ANNUAL 5.1 (1949)

1953-1980 SOLAR RADIATION AVERAGE DAILY TOTAL (LANGLEYS)

HIGHEST ANNUAL 390 (1973) LOWEST ANNUAL 324 (1980)

• CALORIES/cm 2 +ALSO ON EARLIER YEARS

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-44NUMBER OF DAYS CLEAR (0-3 TENTHS SKY COVER, SR TO SS)

GREATEST ANNUAL (1954-80) 121 1960 LEAST ANNUAL (1954-80) 80 1977

CLOUDY (9-10 TENTHS SKY COVER, SR TO SS)

GREATEST ANNUAL (1954-80) 193 1978 LEAST ANNUAL (1954-80) 85 1966

THUNDERSTORMS GREATEST ANNUAL (1945-80) 23 1948 LEAST ANNUAL (1945-80) 3 1949

HEAVY FOG (VIS. 1/4 MILE OR LESS)

GREATEST SEASONAL (1945-80) 42 1950-51 LEAST SEASONAL (1945-80) 9 1948-49

PRECIPITATION 0.10 INCH OR MORE GREATEST ANNUAL (1946-80) 39 1950 LEAST ANNUAL (1946-80) 10 1965

SNOW 1.0 INCH OR MORE GREATEST SEASONAL (1946-80) 15 1955-56 LEAST SEASONAL (1946-80) 0 1976-77

3 IN. OR MORE SNOW ON GROUND GREASTEST SEASONAL (1946-80) 40 1978-79+

LEAST SEASONAL (1946-80) 0 1976-77

PEAK GUST 40 MPH OR GREATER GREATEST ANNUAL (1945-80) 41 1961 LEAST ANNUAL (1945-80) 10 1978

MAX. TEMPERATURE 90 OR ABOVE GREATEST ANNUAL (1912-80) 85 1940+

LEAST ANNUAL (1912-80) 29 1980

MAX. TEMPERATURE 100 OR ABOVE GREATEST ANNUAL (1912-80) 32 1942 LEAST ANNUAL (1912-80) 1 1954

MAX. TEMPERATURE 32 OR BELOW GREATEST SEASONAL (1912-80) 53 1955-56 LEAST SEASONAL (1912-80) 1 1937-38

MIN. TEMPERATURE 32 OR BELOW GREATEST SEASONAL (1912-80) 141 1916-17 LEAST SEASONAL (1912-80) 75 1957-58

MIN. TEMPERATURE 0 OR BELOW GREATEST SEASONAL (1912-80) 18 1949-50 LEAST SEASONAL (1912-80)01976-77 Table 2.3-1 Averages and Extremes of C limatic Elements at Hanford (Based on all Available Reco rds to and Including the Year 1980) (Continued)

PAGE 2 OF 2 NUMBER OF DAYS (1954-1980) NUMBER OF DAYS (1945-1980)

• CLEAR PTLY CLDY CLOUDY THUNDERSTORMS HEAVY FOG (VIS. 1/4 MI. OR LESS) PRECIPITATION 0.10 INCH OR MORE SNOW 1.0 INCH OR MORE MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MONTHLY MEAN GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Year 3 4

6 6

8 10 19 18 15 10 4 3 106 7 9 12 12 14 21 26 30 27 14 10 9 30 1963 1968+

1979+

1962 1973 1961 1960 1955 1975 1980+

1957 1978 Aug 1955 0 0

1 1

1 5 13 9 6

1 1

1 0 1955+

1980+

1978+

1963 1977 1972+

1976+

1978 1978 1975 1973+

1980+

Feb 1980+ 5 5

8 9 11 10 7 7

7 7

5 5 86 22 19 17 15 12 10 5 6

8 14 21 23 172 28 26 23 21 19 15 12 13 16 22 25 28 28 1978 1980+

1977 1979+

1977+

1980+

1976 1968 1977 1973 1973+

1962 Jan 1978+ 17 12 9 6

6 5

0 0

1 9 15 17 0 1963 1964 1979+

1956 1958 1979+

1967 1969+

1975 1970 1961 1978 Aug 1969+ 0

1 2

2 2

2 1

0

1. 10 0 1

1 3

7 8

7 8

4 2

0 1 8 ------

1972+

1969+

1979+

1956 1972+

1975 1953 1959 1976

---

1971 June 1972+ 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 ------

1980+

1980+

1977+

1977+

1963+

1973+

1974+

1976+

1980+

---

1980+

---

6 3

1

0

1 6

8 25 15 11 5 1

1 1

0 1

1 7 13 17 17 1976 1963 1951 1975+

1958 1971

---

1959 1977 1980 1965 1950 Dec 1950 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 2 0 1949 1977 1980+

1980+

1980+

1980+

---

1980+

1980+

1978+

1960 1968+ ------ 3 2 2

1 2

2 1

1 1

2 3

3 23 8 5

8 5

4 8

3 4

5 8 10 9 10 1970 1980+

1957 1948 1980+

1950 1974+

1976+

1977+

1950 1973 1964 Nov 1973 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 1977+

1979+

1980+

1977+

1979+

1979+

1980+

1980+

1978+

1978+

1976+

1976+

Aug 1980+ 2 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 1

2 6 10 4 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 6

6 10 1950 1975+

1957+

---

---

---

---

---

---

1973 1955 1964 Jan 1950 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 1977+

1979+

1980+

---

---

---

---

---

---

1980+

1980+

1976+ ------ NUMBER OF DAYS (1945-1980) NUMBER OF DAYS (1912 - 1980) 3" OR MORE SNOW ON GND. PEAK GUST 40 MPH OR GREATER MAX. TEMP 90 OR ABOVE MAX. TEMP 100 OR ABOVE MAX. TEMP. 32 OR BELOW MIN. TEMP. 32 OR BELOW MIN. TEMP 0 OR BELOW MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLY YEAR MEAN MONTHLY GREATEST MONTHLY YEAR LEAST MONTHLYY YEAR Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year 5 3 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

2 11 23 16 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 12 14 23 1969 1950

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

1978 1955 Jan 1969 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 1977+

1978+

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

1980+

1980+

---

3 2 3

3 2

2 1

1 1

2 2

3 25 11 10 9 7

6 6

4 5

4 8

5 8 11 1972 1976 1956 1972 1971+

1973 1979+

1951 1946 1967 1973+

1957+

Jan 1972 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 1979+

1978+

1978 1979+

1977 1980+

1977+

1980+

1980+

1979+

1979+

1969+

---

0 0 0

3 9 20 18 5

0 0 55 0 0

0 4 11 20 29 29 16 1 0

0 29 ------

---

---

1926 1924 1940+

1941 1915 1938 1933

---

---

July 1941 0 0 0

0 0

0 8

7 0

0 0

0 0 ------

---

---

1980+

1980+

1980+

1963 1948 1977+

1980+

---

---

---

0 0 0

0

2 7

4

0 0

0 13 0 0

0 0

1 9 16 16 2 0

0 0 16 ------

---

---

---

1966+

1970 1971+

1942 1955+

---

---

---

July 1971+ 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 ------

---

---

---

1980+

1980+

1963+

1980+

1980+

---

---

---

---

11 3 #

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 8 24 30 15 2 0

0 0

0 0

0 2 15 19 30 1979 1956 1960

---

---

---

---

---

---

1935 1955 1914 Jan 1979 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 1967+

1976+

1980+

---

---

---

---

---

---

1980+

1976+

1974+

---

27 21 15 5

0 0

0

5 17 25 115 31 28 25 15 3 0

0 0

4 12 30 31 31 1980+

1944+

1944+

1935 1938

---

---

---

1933+

1916 1936 1978+

Jan 1980+ 9 5 6

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 4 14 0 1953 1958 1968+

1974+

1980+

---

---

---

1980+

1962+

1949 1933

---

2 1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

1 4 14 9 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1 14 14 1950 1929

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

1955+

1919 Jan 1950+ 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 1977+

1980+

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

1980+

1980+

---

REFERENCE NOTES

• PRECIPITATION OBSERVATIONS NOT BEGUN UNTIL 1946

1. LESS THAN 1/2

+ ALSO ON EARLIER YEARS LOCATION AND HISTORY PRESENT LOCATION 25 MILES NW OF RICHLAND, WASHINGTON

LATITUDE 4634'N; LONGITUDE 11936'W, ELEVATION 733 FEET OBSERVATIONS FROM 1912 TO 1944 WERE BY UNITED STATES WEATHER BUREAU COOPERATIVE OBSERVERS AT A SITE ABOUT 10 MILES ENE OF PRESENT LOCATION. SINCE 1944, OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED ON A 24 HOUR-A-DAY BASIS BY THREE DIFFERENT DOE CONTRACTORS.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-45 Table 2.3-2 Average Re t u rn Period (R) and Exis t i ng Record (ER) for Various Precipitation Amounts and Intensity During Specified Time Periods at Hanford (Based on Extreme Value Analys is of 1947-1969 Records)

Amount (Inches)

Intensity (Inches per Hour)

Time Period Time Period R (YEARS) 20 MIN 60 MIN 2 HRS 3 HRS 6 HRS 12 H R S 24 H R S 20 MIN 60 MIN 2 HRS 3 HRS 6 HRS 12 H R S 24 H R S 2 5 10 25 50 100 250 500 1000 0.16 0.24 0.37 0.47 0.53 0.60 0.68 0.73 0.80 0.26 0.40 0.50 0.62 0.72 0.81 0.93 1.02 1.11 0.30 0.48 0.59 0.74 0.85 0.96 1.11 1.22 1.33 0.36 0.55 0.67 0.83 0.96 1.07 1.22 1.33 1.45 0.48 0.77 0.96 1.21 1.40 1.59 1.82 2.00 2.20 0.62 0.95 1.17 1.45 1.66 1.87 2.13 2.34 2.55 0.72 1.06 1.28 1.56 1.77 1.99 2.26 2.47 2.68 0.49 0.72 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.26 0.40 0.50 0.62 0.72 0.81 0.93 1.02 1.11 0.15 0.24 0.30 0.37 0.42 0.48 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.12 0.18 0.22 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.052 0.079 0.098 0.121 0.138 0.156 0.177 0.195 0.212 0.030 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.074 0.083 0.094 0.103 0.112

• No records have been kept for time peri ods of less than 60 minutes. However, t h e rain gage chart for 6-12-69 shows that 0.55 inch o c curred dur i n g a 20-minute p e riod from 1835 to 1855 PST. An additio nal 0.01 inch occurred between 1855 and 1910 to account for the record 60-m i nute amount of 0.59 inch.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-46 Table 2.3-3 Miscellane o u s Snowfall Statistics (1946 Th r o ugh 1970)

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Season Average nu m ber of days w ith depth at 04 0 0 PST 1" o r m o re 3" o r m o re 6" o r m o re 12" o r m o re 0 0

0 0 1 1

0 0 5 2

1

1. 10 5 3

1. 5 3

1 0 #

0 0

0 21 11 5

1. Record grea t est number o f days with depth at 0400 PST 1" or more 3" or more 6" o r m o re 12" o r m o re 0 0 0 0 (1955) 11 (1955) 10 0 0 (1964+) 17 (1955) 14 (1964) 12 (1964) 4 (1969) 31 (1969) 23 (1965) 23 (1969) 1 (1950) 17 (1950) 16 (1969+) 8 0 (1951) 3 0 0

0 (1955-56) 54 (1949-50) 38 (1949-50) 23 (1964-65) 4 Record grea t est depth (1957) 0.3 (1946) 5.1 (1964) 1 2.1 (1969) 1 2.0 (1969) 1 0.0 (1957) 2.3 (Dec 19 6 4) 12.1 Greatest in 24 ho u rs (1957) 0.3 (1955) 4.8 (1965) 5.4 (1954) 7.1 (1959) 5.2 (1957+) 2.2 (Jan. 1954)

7.1 Average

% of water equivalent

of all precipitation 2 14 46 48 29 14 26 ( ) Denotes ye a r of occ u rr e n c e

+ Denotes also in earlier years

1. Denotes less than 1/2 day

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-47 Table 2.3-4 Tornado H i story Within 100 Miles of CGS Date Location June 26, 1916 Wal l a Walla, Washington

April 15, 1925 Condon, O r egon

September 2, 1936 Wal l a Walla, Washington

May 20, 1948 Yak i ma, Washington

May 29, 1948 Yak i ma, Washington

June 11, 1948 Ephr ata, W a shington

June 16, 1948 H a nford R e servation

May 9, 1956 Kenn e wick, Washington

April 12, 1957 Ione, Oregon

April 30, 1957 Yakima, Washington

May 6, 1957 Harr i ngt o n , Washington

April 24, 1958 Wal l a Walla, Washington

June 26, 1958 Wallula Junction, Washington

March 14, 1966 Little Goose Dam, Washington Note: No major damage or loss of life was associated with any of the tornadoes.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-48 Table 2.3-5 Monthly and Annual Prevailing Direction s , Average Speed s , and Peak Gusts: 1945-1970 at HMS (50 ft level)

Peak Gust Month Prev Den Avg Speed Highest Avg Year Lowest Avg Year Speed Den Year Jan NW 6.4 9.6* 1953 3.1 1955 65** S 19 6 7 Feb NW 7.0 9.4 1961 4.6 1963 63 SW 19 6 5 Mar WNW 8.4 10.7 1964 5.9 1958 70 SW 19 5 6 Apr WNW 9.0 11.1 1959 7.4 1958 60 WSW 19 6 9 May WNW 8.8 10.5 1965+ 5.8 1957 71 SSW 19 4 3 June WNW 9.2 10.7 19 4 9 7.7 1950+ 72 SW 19 5 7 July WNW 8.6 9.6 1963 6.8 1955 55 WSW 19 6 3 Aug WNW 8.0 9.1 1946 6.0 1956 66 SW 19 6 1 Sept WNW 7.5 9.2 19 6 1 5.4 1957 65 SSW 19 5 3 Oct WNW 6.7 9.1 1946 4.4 1952 63 SSW 19 5 0 Nov NW 6.2 7.9 1945 2.9 1956 64 SSW 19 4 9 Dec NW 6.0 8.3 1968 3.9 1963+ 71 SW 19 5 5 Year WNW 7.6 8.3 1968+ 6.3 1957 72** SW June 19 5 7

• The average speed for January, 1972, was 10.3 mph

• • On January 11, 1972, a new all-time record peak gu s t of 80 mph was established C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-49 Table 2.3-6 Speed and Direction of Daily Peak Gusts*

Speed Class (mph) Extreme High and Date of Occurrence **

Direction Under 10 10-19 20-2930-39 40-4950-59 60-69 70 orover Total mph Date NNE 0.2 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 2.6 47 Feb. 5, 1948 NE 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.2 0 0 0 0 2.5 38 July 10, 1951 ENE 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 1.2 37 May 27, 1947 E 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 # 0 0 0 1.2 44 June 11, 1950 ESE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 26 June 2, 1958 SE 0.7 2.0 0.4 # # # 0 0 3.1 53 Aug. 29, 1947 SSE 0.7 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 # 0 0 3.2 52 Dec. 4, 1952 S 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 # 0 3.3 58 Dec. 23, 1957 SSW 0.1 0.9 1.5 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.1 # 5.2 71 May 26, 1948 SW 0.2 0.7 3.6 3.4 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 10.2 72 June 5, 1957 WSW 0.2 1.5 2.7 2.4 1.1 0.2 0 0 8.1 58 Nov. 3, 1958 L W 0.3 2.2 2.1 1.0 0.3 # 0 0 5.9 52 Nov. 4, 1958 L WNW 1.0 9.6 8.0 5.4 0.6 # 0 0 24.6 50 July 19, 1953 NW 1.5 9.6 6.8 5.1 0.8 0 0 0 23.8 49 April 6, 1952 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-50 Table 2.3-6 Speed and Direction of Daily Peak Gusts* (Continued)

Speed Class (mph) Extreme High and Date of Occurrence **

Direction Under 10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 or over Total mph Date NNW 0.4 0.8 0.3 # 0 0 0 0 1.5 38 May 8, 1955 N 0.2 1.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 3.0 46 Aug. 27, 1 9 51 Summary 6.6 34.5 31.2 20.3 5.9 1.2 0.2 0.1 100.0 --- ---

• Based on 12 years of observations (1947-58). Tabular values under speed cla s ses denote percent of all daily observations made during the period.

L Denotes the latest of se v e ral occurrences.

1. Denotes less than .05%.

• • A new record was set on January 11, 197 2, when a peak gust of 80 mph was recor d ed at the 50 foot l e vel at the Hanford Meteorology Station. R e ference Document BNWL-1640 "T he Hanford Wind Sto r m of January 11, 1972

." dated February 1972, issued by Battelle P ac i fic Northwest L a boratories.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-51 Table 2.3-7a CGS and HMS Hourly Meteorol ogical Data, August 7-9, 1972 (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)

CGS Site HMS Tower Site Day/Hour Wind Direction (degrees) Wind Speed (mph) Dry Bulb ( F) Relative Humidity (percent) Wet Bulb ( F) Wind Direction (degrees) Wind Speed (mph) Dry Bulb ( F) Wet Bulb ( F) Elevation 23 feet 23 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 50 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7/1 7/2 7/3 7/4 7/5 7/6 7/7 7/8 7/9 7/10 7/11 7/12 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20 7/21 7/22 7/23 7/24 30 50 160 80 50 70 100 70 70 100 130 140 360 80 110 110 90 60 50 50 40 60 100 30 5 5

5 5

5 4

5 4

4 5

5 5

6 8

8 9

9 9 12 12 8 6

5 4 76 72 71 69 65 61 61 59 67 77 85 91 96 99 102 106 107 108 106 106 103 96 89 85 35 36 44 48 51 64 64 68 66 54 46 38 35 32 30 28 25 24 23 23 22 22 26 34 60 58 59 58 55 54 54 53 59 65 69 71 73 74 76 77 77 77 75 75 73 69 66 66 220 270 300 270 180 110 300 320 320 Variable 40 Variable 90 110 90 Variable 90 90 110 90 130 220 300 270 6 6

5 5

4 2

1 5

3 1

3 3

5 5

4 4

8 8

7 8

7 6

8 5 78 76 78 74 72 67 76 81 85 92 93 98 102 104 105 107 108 106 103 97 90 84 82 81 57 56 57 54 55 53 57 60 61 64 64 66 68 68 69 69 69 68 67 64 62 60 58 58 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 360 130 40 20 40 80 100 140 130 130 120 70 70 40 60 70 30 30 90 110 320 320 320 320 6 5

5 7

6 5

5 4

5 5

7 7

6 6

7 7

8 8

8 8 19 21 15 15 79 72 70 71 71 67 65 62 67 77 85 90 95 98 101 104 106 108 106 106 108 100 95 91 36 39 42 46 46 46 52 54 56 53 46 40 37 34 32 30 28 27 26 25 26 26 28 28 63 58 58 59 59 56 55 53 57 64 69 71 73 74 76 77 77 78 77 76 78 73 71 68 270 270 200 240 200 300 320 20 140 110 110 60 90 90 130 110 220 270 300 300 300 300 300 270 4 4

4 1

4 5

5 3

2 3

4 4

4 4

4 6 10 16 20 21 21 22 16 16 78 77 78 71 70 69 79 85 87 91 93 97 103 104 106 108 108 106 102 96 91 90 87 85 57 57 57 53 53 53 60 63 63 65 65 67 69 69 70 70 70 68 70 66 66 63 64 63 9/1 9/2 9/3 9/4 9/5 9/6 9/7 9/8 9/9 9/10 9/11 9/12 9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16 9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23 9/24 320 320 180 Variable 150 140 160 200 190 200 180 170 190 200 160 300 250 300 310 320 320 320 320 320 17 10 7 5

6 5

5 7

7 8

6 5

7 10 8 13 13 17 14 20 22 17 13 16 90 89 84 77 72 70 71 68 73 81 89 94 98 100 100 102 104 104 104 102 96 93 87 84 32 32 34 35 46 54 57 58 60 56 50 44 38 34 30 30 28 26 27 26 27 29 30 30 69 68 65 61 60 59 61 59 63 68 72 74 76 76 74 76 76 75 76 74 71 70 66 64 270 240 300 240 270 240 240 220 240 320 320 220 220 220 220 240 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 9 6

7 6 11 10 8 6 10 9 6

5 10 15 15 13 16 20 20 17 16 18 19 14 83 82 78 80 82 82 82 87 89 94 96 99 101 101 101 103 102 97 93 88 83 80 79 78 63 61 60 62 63 63 63 65 65 65 66 67 68 67 67 68 68 67 65 63 61 60 60 60 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-52 Table 2.3-7b CGS Hourly Meteorological Data, July 4-12, 1975 (33 ft Level) (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)

Day/Hour Wind Speed mph Dry Bulb F Dewpoint F Wet Bulb F 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 4/22 4/23 4/24 3.56 3.66 1.71 4.88 2.96 2.76 5.21 3.33 6.02 5.97 12.36 9.67 9.55 8.89 6.28 5.85 6.13 3.55 3.41 5.64 3.88 3.61 3.97 4.81 66.13 64.91 64.16 62.69 61.87 65.60 72.51 77.12 81.71 83.95 90.00 94.48 97.15 99.57 102.37 103.49 104.27 104.77 103.68 95.64 91.49 86.72 83.92 79.60 53.17 54.85 53.92 53.41 53.57 55.20 55.95 54.84 55.52 57.71 55.57 57.09 57.97 58.00 56.77 54.77 52.40 51.20 49.57 59.28 57.55 56.56 58.68 57.84 58.41 58.86 58.07 57.22 56.99 59.30 62.22 63.26 65.16 67.00 67.88 69.99 71.21 71.93 72.17 71.63 70.88 70.56 69.61 71.39 69.30 67.32 67.50 65.66 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5 5/6 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 5/11 5/12 5/13 5/14 5/15 5/16 5/17 5/18 5/19 5/20 5/21 5/22 5/23 5/24 4.96 3.90 3.30 6.61 6.06 5.00 5.28 2.94 4.87 8.24 5.82 5.69 6.13 4.74 7.52 6.43 4.65 6.93 6.48 6.79 5.25 6.05 3.95 6.34 76.83 74.83 71.68 70.93 71.15 72.99 77.84 81.95 87.01 92.11 96.69 98.96 100.80 103.79 105.36 105.81 104.53 103.48 101.04 96.64 93.63 89.23 87.41 83.80 57.17 55.47 55.41 54.56 55.57 55.89 57.41 58.51 57.89 56.24 54.80 57.68 60.27 54.99 54.77 55.09 53.25 52.80 57.15 57.79 57.23 56.43 57.25 58.84 64.37 62.79 61.64 60.92 61.54 62.36 64.84 66.78 68.07 68.85 69.61 71.60 73.36 71.81 72.18 72.44 71.31 70.80 71.97 70.97 69.80 68.05 67.88 67.55 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6 6/7 6/8 6/9 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 6/14 6/15 6/16 6/17 2.68 6.15 4.87 6.08 5.55 2.14 2.35 4.21 2.96 5.10 13.07 12.58 6.00 4.56 5.09 6.27 9.89 81.71 79.55 76.13 73.41 72.83 74.56 80.99 85.01 86.61 89.49 86.75 83.84 87.87 88.69 91.49 94.56 92.59 59.17 59.15 59.73 59.47 59.39 61.28 63.33 61.95 63.65 61.49 62.85 63.47 60.85 61.47 60.59 59.57 60.03 67.05 66.33 65.54 64.49 64.24 65.91 69.16 69.61 71.04 70.70 70.63 70.10 69.87 70.45 70.83 71.21 70.87 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-53 Table 2.3-7c CGS Hourly Meteorological Data, July 4-12, 1975 (33 ft Level)* (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)

Day/H our Wind Speed mph Dry Bulb F Dewpoint F Wet Bulb F 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21 6/22 6/23 6/24 7.70 3.03 5.58 12.41 8.22 3.64 3.82 93.44 92.59 90.53 87.60 82.43 79.72 79.49 59.81 59.17 59.57 60.93 58.69 56.40 55.65 71.00 70.43 70.02 69.83 67.03 64.94 64.48 7/1 7/2 7/3 7/4 7/5 7/6 7/7 7/8 7/9 7/10 7/11 7/12 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20 7/21 7/22 7/23 7/24 8.39 7.41 8.64 7.31 7.31 8.75 10.86 8.77 10.34 12.46 9.95 10.70 6.33 3.98 8.95 12.70 5.17 3.60 8.61 5.68 4.75 4.06 8.93 16.32 75.23 73.55 72.88 72.67 71.28 74.37 76.77 79.63 83.07 86.32 89.15 90.61 92.80 95.65 95.01 96.85 96.51 97.15 96.40 91.52 86.08 84.35 81.39 81.47 54.69 54.69 53.95 53.68 53.36 55.44 57.23 58.96 59.71 60.35 61.49 60.37 59.71 59.57 58.67 59.31 59.49 58.72 57.76 58.85 61.33 55.89 59.31 60.35 62.52 61.94 61.31 61.10 60.43 62.61 64.38 66.26 67.77 69.13 70.60 70.45 70.76 71.53 70.90 71.76 71.75 71.56 70.88 69.94 69.58 66.22 67.02 67.62 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 10.89 10.13 11.19 9.25 8.42 8.80 14.06 13.55 M M

M M

M M

M 5.38 5.44 3.66 3.50 6.68 7.28 9.70 9.48 6.22 80.08 79.65 78.05 76.72 74.67 76.45 79.23 80.37 M M

M M

M M

M 101.23 102.03 102.16 100.85 97.09 92.64 89.25 87.49 83.73 58.21 56.69 55.33 54.43 54.53 55.55 56.88 57.60 M M

M M

M M

M 59.09 58.00 56.56 55.28 56.61 56.40 55.25 53.71 54.29 66.01 65.07 63.83 62.91 62.25 63.40 65.03 65.79 M M

M M

M M

M 72.92 72.64 72.02 71.07 70.54 69.09 67.49 66.21 65.24 *M - M i ss i ng data C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-54 Table 2.3-7d CGS Hourly Meteorological Data, July 4-12, 1975 (33 ft Level)* (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)

Day/Hour Wind S peed m ph Dry Bulb F Dewpoint F Wet Bulb F 9/1 9/2 9/3 9/4 9/5 9/6 9/7 9/8 9/9 9/10 9/11 9/12 9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16 9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23 9/24 7.99 5.26 3.95 4.58 3.78 4.00 4.67 9.88 12.03 10.18 8.76 5.78 7.10 4.77 5.17 5.12 3.24 6.10 6.18 7.80 13.30 25.82 17.04 11.05 81.52 79.12 74.91 73.12 72.37 75.28 79.79 83.38 85.49 88.13 92.13 95.52 99.49 102.61 106.40 108.03 109.47 109.15 107.44 101.47 99.31 94.16 94.61 92.37 55.81 56.45 58.32 58.69 57.92 59.49 60.16 60.06 60.00 61.28 62.85 64.40 63.17 62.72 58.77 55.28 55.49 53.07 52.35 57.87 53.15 61.36 59.49 57.57 65.25 64.76 64.35 63.94 63.25 65.12 66.98 68.06 68.69 70.18 72.20 74.02 74.46 75.01 74.23 73.15 73.65 72.58 71.79 72.42 69.69 72.01 71.19 69.58 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/4 10/5 10/6 10/7 10/8 10/9 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/13 10/14 10/15 10/16 10/17 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 8.36 12.16 9.19 5.08 1.56 6.53 7.10 4.15 3.89 5.12 3.77 5.74 5.89 5.27 5.30 5.90 9.37 12.21 8.55 5.54 4.26 3.14 7.36 12.76 90.91 85.92 84.24 80.61 80.24 78.27 83.25 86.77 90.64 92.64 95.23 98.32 100.91 103.09 105.20 105.71 104.93 102.48 101.15 98.27 96.21 90.72 91.33 91.49 58.03 59.17 57.28 56.21 58.48 59.55 62.99 62.91 61.09 62.00 63.36 62.40 59.41 59.39 58.91 56.00 54.11 55.88 56.05 56.13 56.59 60.53 57.68 60.48 69.35 68.39 66.88 65.14 66.21 66.15 69.65 70.67 70.83 71.90 73.38 73.73 72.98 73.58 73.96 72.80 71.78 71.81 71.50 70.68 70.27 70.57 69.31 70.77 11/1 11/2 11/3 11/4 11/5 11/6 11/7 11/8 11/9 11/10 11/11 7.86 12.03 14.22 6.62 8.70 7.13 12.45 M 10.14 12.86 14.68 89.61 86.81 88.56 87.60 85.47 85.28 82.37 M 83.96 83.57 82.51 61.65 62.03 61.48 59.81 60.11 60.37 61.23 M 62.40 62.53 63.97 70.83 70.20 70.42 69.25 68.74 68.82 68.39 M 69.53 69.49 70.00 *M - M i ssing data C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-55 Table 2.3-7e CGS Hourly Meteorological Data, July 4-12, 1975 (33 ft Level)* (Ultimate Heat Sink Studies)

Day/Hour Wind Speed mph Dry Bulb F Dewpoint F Wet Bulb F 11/12 11/13 11/14 11/15 11/16 11/17 11/18 11/19 11/20 11/21 11/22 11/23 11/24 13.48 11.16 11.36 8.17 4.60 4.39 4.27 11.57 9.70 8.24 6.89 10.12 10.69 84.13 87.73 87.76 89.92 94.72 96.19 96.16 89.28 84.99 83.01 82.00 81.97 78.83 64.96 62.91 63.12 61.81 59.97 59.89 58.85 64.05 61.07 60.69 61.09 59.39 57.81 71.06 70.96 71.08 71.00 71.46 71.85 71.33 72.05 69.10 68.28 68.20 67.25 65.38 12/1 12/2 12/3 12/4 12/5 12/6 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24 10.37 7.69 3.17 2.34 5.74 6.75 6.57 4.62 4.23 4.51 5.53 5.53 5.93 6.81 10.87 12.07 15.02 12.21 15.39 13.48 8.45 7.23 9.74 5.68 77.65 76.64 75.87 75.71 73.92 70.51 73.07 76.88 79.71 82.69 84.13 86.43 88.75 90.69 91.31 87.20 86.96 87.39 83.63 81.47 81.76 81.36 79.41 77.73 57.01 56.85 56.32 56.99 58.64 56.51 57.71 59.63 60.93 61.44 61.01 61.65 62.40 62.93 61.73 60.19 62.24 61.36 62.45 60.80 58.77 54.43 44.32 43.97 64.57 64.14 63.59 63.89 64.18 61.81 63.38 65.73 67.38 68.61 68.81 69.86 70.98 71.85 71.37 69.32 70.36 70.00 69.46 67.87 66.86 64.51 59.39 58.63 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-56 Table 2.3-7f 24 Hour HMS Meteorological P r ofile for August 4, 1961 Ho u r Dry Bulb T e mp Wet Bulb Temp Dew Pt Wind (mph)

F F F F 0 1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 82.0 84.0 86.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 86.0 91.0 92.0 96.0 99.0 103.0 107.0 110.0 112.0 112.0 113.0 110.0 108.0 100.0 98.0 96.0 94.0 93.0 61.0 62.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 63.0 63.0 64.0 65.0 67.0 69.0 70.0 71.0 71.0 72.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.0 64.0 45.0 46.0 48.0 49.0 48.0 46.0 43.0 42.0 42.0 41.0 42.0 44.0 45.0 46.0 48.0 48.0 49.0 45.0 43.0 45.0 45.0 46.0 46.0 45.0 4 5 5 5 5

3 8

7 6

6 7

6 6

5 6

5 5

8 14 19 20 18 16 12 24 Hour Average

Dry Bulb = 96.96 F Wet Bulb = 65.62 F Dew Point = 45.29 F W i nd = 8.37 m p h C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-57 Table 2.3-7g Diurnal Variation in Dry Bulb and Wet Bulb Temperature for Use in Analyzing Second Through Thirtieth Day Pond Thermal Performance (Based On July 9 - August 8, 1961 Hourly Hanford Meteorological Station Data)

Hour Dry Bulb ( F) Wet Bulb ( F) 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 70.2 68.8 68.3 68.8 70.2 72.5 75.6 79.0 82.8 86.6 90.1 93.1 95.4 96.8 97.3 96.8 95.4 93.1 90.1 86.6 82.8 79.0 75.6 72.5 56.5 56.0 55.8 56.0 56.5 57.3 58.4 59.6 61.0 62.3 63.6 64.7 65.5 66.0 66.2 66.0 65.5 64.7 63.6 62.3 61.0 59.6 58.4 57.3 Daily Average and Variation 82.8 +/- 14.5°F 61.0 +/- 5.2°F

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-58 Table 2.3-7h Diurnal Variation in Dry Bulb and Wet Bulb Temperature for Use in Analyzing First Through Thir tieth Day Maximum Mass Loss (Based On July 2 - August 1, 1960 Hourly Hanford Meteorologi cal Station Data)

Hour Dry Bulb ( F) Wet Bulb ( F) 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 69.4 67.8 67.3 67.8 69.4 71.9 75.1 78.9 82.9 86.9 90.7 93.9 96.4 98.0 98.5 98.0 96.4 93.9 90.7 86.9 82.9 78.9 75.1 71.9 53.3 52.6 52.4 52.6 53.3 54.3 55.7 57.3 59.0 60.7 62.3 63.7 64.7 65.4 65.6 65.4 64.7 63.7 62.3 60.7 59.0 57.3 55.7 54.3 Daily Average and Variation 82.9 +/- 15.6°F 59.0 +/- 6.6°F

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-59 Table 2.3-8a Summary of CGS Onsite Meteorological Data Collected Du r i ng the First and Second Annual Cycles as Compared to Correspond i ng Hanfo r d Meteorolog i cal Station Data (Historical HMS Data Indi cated for Each Month)

April May June July August September October Site and Sens o r Elevation '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 1. Prevailing W i nd Direction CGS 33'HMS 50' HMS (hist) 50' (1955-197

0)

WNW SSW WNW N/A WNW SSW NW WNW N/A WNW WNW NW WNW N/A WNW S S WNW N/A WNW S S WNW N/A WNW N N NW N/A NW WNW S NW NW WNW 2. Mean Wind S p eed (mph) CGS 33' HMS 50' HMS (hist) 50' (1955-197

0) 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.0 9.0 8.4 8.7 9.0 9.6 8.8 8.5 9.3 9.0 10.5 9.2 7.2 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.6 6.8 7.9 7.5 9.0 8.0 6.5 5.7 7.1 6.8 7.5 4.8 7.2 5.6 7.1 6.7 3. Mean Dry Bu lb Temp. (°F)

CGS 33' HMS 3' HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970)

52.2 47.6

52.5 48.4 52.5 57.4 59.6

57.9 60.7 61.8 72.5 66.1

73.3 67.3 69.9 73.6 78.7

74.8 80.0 77.5 74.7 70.3

76.3 71.2 75.3 66.9 66.2

68.3 67.9 67.0 51.7 52.1 52.0 52.3 53.2 4. Mean Wet Bu lb Temp. (°F)

CGS 33' HMS 3' HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970)

44.7 39.7

43.9 40.0 42.8 47.2 48.2

46.5 49.0 49.1 56.0 52.7

54.5 54.0 54.5 57.4 61.5

56.3 62.0 57.9 58.0 55.7

57.0 56.0 57.3 52.6 52.0

52.0 52.0 52.6 43.8 45.3 42.0 45.0 45.4 5. Mean Dew Point Temp. (° F) CGS 33' HMS 3' HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970)

36.6 29.8

33.3 30.0 30.4 36.6 36.9

34.0 38.6 36.0 43.0 40.8

38.2 42.4 41.2 44.9 50.2

41.0 50.1 42.3 45.6 44.2

43.2 44.6 42.8 39.9 39.5

38.9 38.2 39.5 35.0 38.2 31.0 37.2 36.9 6. Total Precipitation (inches)

CGS HMS HMS (hist) 1946-1970 Mean Total

N/A - Not A v ailable

.55 .53

.46 .42 .44

.44 .47

.28 .38 .50

.06 .46

.12 .14 .66

.45 .09

.71 .32 .16 0.0 1.17 Trace 1.16

.21

.06 0.0

.01 .03 .30

.10 .74

.21 .87 .61 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-60 Table 2.3-8a Summary of CGS Onsite Meteorological Data Collected Du r i ng the First and Second Annual Cycles as Compared to Correspond i ng Hanfo r d Meteorolog i cal Station Data (Historical HMS Data Indicated for Each Month) (Continued)

F i rst A n nual Cycle Sec o nd A n nual Cycle Nove m b er Dece m ber January Febru a ry March Site and S e n s or Elevat i o n '74 '75 '74 '75 '75 '76 '75 '76 '75 '76 April '74-M a rch '75 A p r i l '75- M a rch '76 1. Pre v aili n g Wind Direction CGS 33' H M S 50' H M S (h ist) 5 0' (1 95 5-1 97 0)

S S W S NW NW NW S NW NW NW NW N N W N W NW NW SW NW NW SSW NW NW SW NW N N W S S W W N W N W SW W N W NW NW N/A N/A N W ('55 -'7 0) 2. Mean W i nd Speed (m ph) CGS 33' H M S 50' H M S (h ist) 5 0' (1 95 5-1 97 0) 5.8 7.8 5.5 7.7 6.2 6.4 7.1 5.9 7.2 6.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 4.9 6.4 7.8 1 0.4 7.5 1 0.8 7.0 8.7 9.1 8.9 9.6 8.4 7.2 7.8 9.1 1 0.1 7.6 ('55 - '7 0) 3. Mean Dry B u lb Te m p. (°F) CGS 33' H M S 3' H M S (h i s t) 3' (1 95 0-1 9 7 0) 4 2.1 3 9.5 4 2.1 3 9.3 4 0.1 3 6.8 3 4.2 3 5.7 3 4.5 3 3.4 3 2.3 3 2.4 3 2.0 3 1.5 3 0.3 3 3.8 3 7.7 3 3.6 3 7.3 3 7.5 4 1.9 4 0.8 4 2.0 4 0.6 4 4.0 5 3.1 5 2.1 5 3.4 5 2.6 5 3.5 ('50 - '7 0) 4. Mean Wet Bu l b Te m p. (°F) CGS 33' H M S 3' H M S (h i s t) 3' (1 95 0-1 9 7 0) 3 9.3 3 5.5 3 8.0 3 5.0 3 6.4 3 4.5 3 1.9 3 3.0 3 2.0 3 1.2 3 0.0 3 0.6 3 0.0 3 0.0 2 7.9 3 0.9 3 2.9 3 1.0 3 3.0 3 3.6 3 6.2 3 4.4 3 6.0 3 5.0 3 7.3 4 4.3 4 3.4 4 3.4 4 3.6 4 3.8 ('50 - '7 0) 5. Mean Dew P o i n t Te m p. (°F) CGS 33' H M S 3' H M S (h i s t) 3' (1 95 0-1 9 7 0) 3 6.3 3 0.6 3 3.9 3 0.0 3 1.1 3 1.4 2 8.9 2 9.2 2 8.1 2 7.5 2 6.3 2 8.1 2 6.0 2 7.6 2 3.2 2 6.5 2 5.4 2 5.5 2 5.5 2 7.4 2 7.9 2 4.8 2 6.0 2 5.0 2 7.3 3 5.9 3 4.8 3 3.4 3 4.8 3 3.8 ('50 - '7 0) 6. To t a l Prec i p it a ti on (i n c hes) CGS H M S H M S (h ist) 19 4 6-1 970 Mean T o tal N/A - Not A v a ilable .56 .70

.71 .60 .80 .67 .03 .97 .70 .81 .93 .08 1.43 .5 6 .97 .67 .11 .98 .36 .58 .52 .16 .33 .23 .38 4.92 4.54 6.21 5.87 6.53 ('46 - '7 0)

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-61 Table 2.3-8b Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction Versus Speed for CGS 33-ft Level (1974-1975)

APRIL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 5 2 8 15 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 22 ENE E 0 0 1 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 E S E SE 0 0 6 4 4 12 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 23 SSE S 0 0 4 8 26 18 21 19 0 12 0 0 0 0 3 7 54 64 SSW SW 0 0 4 4 16 18 29 9 30 15 2 4 0 0 13 6 94 56 WSW W 0 0 3 3 10 14 12 16 5 17 3 4 1 1 7 8 41 63 WNW NW 0 0 7 5 19 23 26 15 40 9 21 11 8 3 2 1 123 67 NNW N 0 0 5 3 17 14 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 30 23 VA R CA L M 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 69 0 224 0 176 0 131 0 45 0 13 14 64 14 720 MAY SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 5 7 11 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 13 ENE E 0 0 1 8 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 14 E S E SE 0 0 6 1 9 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 SSE S 0 0 9 10 38 27 13 45 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 92 SSW SW 0 0 5 3 30 15 49 18 16 13 4 3 2 0 0 0 106 52 WSW W 0 0 6 3 19 23 30 35 13 13 1 5 0 0 0 0 69 79 WNW NW 0 0 11 4 24 14 34 10 17 13 10 4 0 2 0 0 96 47 NNW N 0 0 3 4 13 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 12 VA R CA L M 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 93 0 269 0 248 0 95 0 27 0 4 8 8 8 744 JUNE SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 5 7 12 9 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 21 ENE E 0 0 6 3 16 14 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 24 ESE SE 0 0 4 4 16 23 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 37 SSE S 0 0 7 4 34 20 11 18 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 1 52 55 SSW SW 0 0 6 3 20 11 12 6 12 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 51 29 WSW W 0 0 3 2 15 18 5 14 3 13 1 2 1 3 0 0 28 52 WNW NW 0 0 2 3 24 15 19 20 10 8 10 5 2 2 0 0 67 53 NNW N 0 0 6 6 17 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 18 VAR CALM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 10 81 38 317 26 172 9 70 0 26 0 8 44 46 127 720 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-62 Table 2.3-8b Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction Versus Speed for CGS 33-ft Level (1974-1 975) (Continued)

JULY SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 3 11 13 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 24 ENE E 0 0 3 10 9 14 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 30 E S E SE 0 0 6 10 18 26 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 40 SSE S 0 0 3 6 37 27 16 32 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 70 SSW SW 0 0 9 7 16 22 18 14 9 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 54 50 WSW W 0 0 6 7 12 14 11 19 3 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 35 49 WNW NW 0 0 5 11 18 18 18 21 17 13 5 4 0 0 0 0 63 67 NNW N 0 0 10 8 25 22 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 35 VAR CA L M 0 0 5 0 24 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 120 0 327 0 181 0 65 0 12 0 3 36 36 36 744 AUGU S T SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 16 12 21 19 11 6 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 48 42 ENE E 0 0 9 10 6 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 E S E SE 0 0 12 6 9 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 32 SSE S 0 0 8 7 39 33 16 28 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 63 75 SSW SW 0 0 11 8 24 16 17 8 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 66 33 WSW W 0 0 9 4 18 13 1 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 26 WNW NW 0 0 8 12 19 27 13 12 22 8 10 8 1 0 0 0 73 67 NNW N 0 0 4 15 35 32 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 57 VAR CA L M 0 0 12 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 163 0 345 0 144 0 53 0 25 0 1 13 13 13 744 SEPTE M BER SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 19 21 29 11 10 5 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 39 ENE E 0 0 20 17 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 24 ESE SE 0 0 15 7 11 11 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21 SSE S 0 0 1 8 13 22 7 25 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 59 SSW SW 0 0 5 12 18 11 11 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 29 WSW W 0 0 8 12 5 10 3 10 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 36 WNW NW 0 0 9 9 12 19 17 24 12 8 5 4 1 1 0 0 56 65 NNW N 0 0 12 15 29 38 14 28 3 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 59 93 VAR CALM 0 0 10 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 200 0 274 0 162 0 63 0 10 0 3 8 8 8 720 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-63 Table 2.3-8b Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction Versus Speed for CGS 33-ft Level (1974-1 975) (Continued)

O C TOBER SP EE D C L A SS (MP H) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 26 26 15 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 43 ENE E 0 0 26 20 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 24 E S E SE 0 0 15 15 2 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 36 SSE S 0 0 16 13 21 25 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 51 SSW SW 0 0 15 12 21 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 26 WSW W 0 0 15 12 11 9 2 10 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 37 WNW NW 0 0 21 17 11 17 15 12 11 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 64 53 NNW N 0 0 29 37 20 24 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 64 VAR CA L M 0 1 16 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 UNKNO TOTAL 0 1 0 331 0 255 0 83 0 25 0 7 0 0 42 42 42 744 NOVEMBER SP EE D C L A SS (MP H) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 18 10 14 13 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 38 26 ENE E 0 0 13 6 10 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 31 8 E S E SE 0 0 12 14 3 13 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 34 SSE S 0 0 7 12 28 29 15 29 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 75 SSW SW 0 0 11 12 32 20 14 6 19 8 1 4 0 0 0 0 77 50 WSW W 0 0 9 12 6 14 5 3 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 24 35 WNW NW 0 0 22 27 14 34 7 12 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 51 75 NNW N 0 0 24 30 34 17 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 50 VAR CA L M 0 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 250 0 285 0 116 0 43 0 11 0 0 5 15 5 720 DE C E M BER SP EE D C L A SS (MP H) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 12 9 3 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 ENE E 0 0 5 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 ESE SE 0 0 8 9 1 6 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 21 SSE S 0 0 5 11 26 39 25 35 3 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 60 100 SSW SW 0 0 14 14 23 11 29 9 9 2 4 0 3 0 0 0 82 36 WSW W 0 0 16 20 17 15 6 7 3 3 2 3 1 4 0 0 45 52 WNW NW 0 0 27 17 25 59 21 11 6 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 81 91 NNW N 0 0 29 21 27 12 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 34 VAR CALM 0 0 8 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 231 0 277 0 160 0 45 0 12 0 9 9 10 9 744 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-64 Table 2.3-8b Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction Versus Speed for CGS 33-ft Level (1974-1 975) (Continued)

JANUA RY SP EE D C L A SS (MP H) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 11 13 17 11 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 28 ENE E 0 0 10 5 12 10 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 33 18 E S E SE 0 0 15 10 5 14 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 23 27 SSE S 0 0 13 10 17 14 15 16 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 46 SSW SW 0 0 6 15 18 14 10 5 15 7 3 4 0 2 0 1 52 48 WSW W 0 0 13 8 16 8 4 8 3 4 6 0 3 0 0 0 45 28 WNW NW 0 0 23 20 14 37 13 19 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 10 51 89 NNW N 0 0 29 11 47 17 22 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 102 44 VAR CA L M 0 0 7 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 219 0 274 0 147 0 40 0 15 0 5 17 44 17 744 FEB R UA R Y SP EE D C L A SS (MP H) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 15 8 15 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 16 ENE E 0 0 5 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 E S E SE 0 0 5 6 5 10 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 20 SSE S 0 0 14 14 20 11 13 18 4 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 52 53 SSW SW 0 0 9 4 8 9 10 3 9 9 18 4 1 4 0 0 55 33 WSW W 0 0 9 4 7 11 3 6 7 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 31 24 WNW NW 0 0 7 12 14 54 9 45 2 10 2 3 1 2 0 0 35 126 NNW N 0 0 14 16 45 19 24 19 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 55 VA R CA L M 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 151 0 248 0 157 0 66 0 35 0 10 5 5 5 672 MARCH SP EE D C L A SS (MP H) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE NE 0 0 6 5 8 4 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 10 ENE E 0 0 4 6 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 ESE SE 0 0 9 2 5 6 1 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 SSE S 0 0 5 3 24 28 22 35 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 79 SSW SW 0 0 1 5 15 9 24 14 16 31 6 14 0 0 0 0 62 73 WSW W 0 0 4 1 7 12 12 2 8 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 37 16 WNW NW 0 0 6 13 21 32 19 27 2 6 0 1 4 4 0 0 52 83 NNW N 0 0 9 11 37 18 23 6 12 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 86 44 VAR CALM 0 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 97 0 237 0 201 0 105 0 33 0 8 63 63 63 744 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-65 Table 2.3-8b Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction Versus Speed for CGS 33-ft Level (1974-1 975) (Continued)

ANNUAL SP E E D C L ASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UN KNO TOT A L NNE NE 0 0 141 131 166 127 50 32 13 5 0 2 0 0 2 3 372 300 ENE E 0 0 103 98 119 69 31 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 260 189 ESE SE 0 0 113 88 88 181 14 50 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 1 216 327 SSE S 0 0 92 106 323 293 182 313 16 91 3 8 0 0 3 8 619 819 SSW SW 0 0 96 99 241 169 229 96 151 98 43 39 6 7 13 7 779 515 WSW W 0 0 101 88 143 161 94 136 48 73 26 19 9 9 7 11 428 497 WNW NW 0 0 148 150 215 349 211 228 144 88 71 41 18 14 5 13 812 883 NNW N 0 0 174 177 346 231 129 96 34 24 5 0 1 0 6 1 695 529 VA R CALM 0 1 90 0 73 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 1 UNKNOTOTAL 0 0 10 2005 38 3332 26 1945 9 801 0 258 0 64 264 354 347 8760 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-66 Table 2.3-9 Percentage Frequency D i stribution of 50-ft Wind Direction Versus Speed at HMS (1955-1970)

JANUA RY SPEED CLASS (MPH) FEBRUARY S P EED C LA S S (M PH) DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG SP E E D N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 2.8 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.4 3.6 3.0 1.3 5.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.3 5.6 7.8 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.4 1.7 1.3 5.1 6.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.6 0.8 10.6 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

1. #

0.1 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.1

0.1

1. #

1. 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 #

0.1 0.1

1. 4.7 3.4 2.9 1.9 2.4 2.8 4.8 2.9 3.6 4.8 6.8 6.0 6.1 14.0 19.3 6.5 1.4 5.4 4.3 4.6 4.4 3.0 3.0 3.4 4.0 5.4 7.7 11.5 10.7 8.9 6.3 7.1 6.9 4.2 1.8 N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 2.6 1.8 2.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.6 1.9 3.3 2.3 1.3 2.4 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.1 3.4 4.9 6.9 2.5 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.1

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.1 2.9 6.8 6.4 0.8

1. 0.2 0.4 0.2

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.1 #

0.1

0.1 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2

1. #

0.1

0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.1

1. 4.8 4.5 3.5 1.9 2.0 2.1 3.4 2.6 2.9 4.2 7.4 7.4 9.3 15.5 18.4 5.7 1.5 2.4 4.5 6.3 3.8 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.0 5.2 6.6 10.5 12.6 10.5 7.8 8.3 7.3 4.8

1.8 TOTAL

38.7 30.1 19.6 7.6 2

.6 0.9 0.2 # 100.0 6.2 TOTAL 30.6 31.0 23.8 9.4 3.0 1.5 0.3 100.0 7.1

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

MARCH SPEED CLASS (MPH) APRIL SP E E D CLASS (MPH) DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG SP E E D N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 1.9 1.4 1.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.4 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.7 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.3 2.0 2.5 3.9 4.4 4.4 2.4 0.2 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.1 2.0 3.0 3.1 5.8 5.3 1.1

1. 0.2 0.6 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.2 2.5 2.5 1.2 2.2 1.8 0.2 #

0.1

1. #

0.2 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.6

1. #

0.3 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.2

1. 4.9 4.5 3.5 1.6 1.9 2.4 3.7 2.8 3.7 5.3 9.8 10.4 9.6 14.4 13.7 5.1 1.5 0.7 5.4 6.8 4.8 5.0 4.2 4.4 5.0 7.1 7.4 12.1 13.5 11.7 8.2 9.5 8.9 5.6 2.1 N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 1.6 1.0 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.6 0.5 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.3 2.6 4.2 3.9 3.7 1.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.1 2.1 3.8 4.3 6.0 4.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 2.1 2.5 1.7 4.2 3.2 0.2 #

0.1

0.1 0.4 1.6 1.1 0.5 1.3 1.5

1. #

0.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4

0.1 0.1

1. # 4.2 3.3 3.2 1.9 2.3 2.0 3.1 2.5 3.2 4.7 9.5 11.3 11.9 16.5 14.2 3.6 2.1 0.5 5.5 6.8 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.5 5.2 6.8 6.7 9.6 12.7 11.4 8.8 11.0 11.0 5.8

2.7 TOTAL

19.9 32.6 26.1 13.5 5

.1 1.8 0.5 100.0 8.6 TOTAL 16.7 31.6 26.7 16.3 6.6 1.9 0.2 100.0 9.1

1. DENOTES LESS THAN 0.05%

1. DENOTES LESS THAN 0.05%

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-67 Table 2.3-9 Percentage Frequency D i stribution of 50-ft Wind Direction Versus Speed at HMS (1955-1970) (Continued)

MAY SPEED CLASS (MPH) JUNE SP E E D C L A S S (MP H) DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG SP E E D N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 1.2 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.9 0.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.3 2.4 2.7 4.0 3.9 3.6 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.7 3.5 4.4 6.7 4.9 0.7

1. 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.1 1.8 1.6 4.7 4.4 0.1 #

0.1

0.1 0.5 0.7 0.2 1.7 2.6

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.5

1. #

1. 3.9 3.0 3.7 2.3 2.4 2.2 3.2 2.7 2.9 3.3 6.4 9.8 11.4 18.0 17.2 3.6 3.2 0.6 5.7 6.7 6.4 5.0 4.7 4.6 5.4 6.4 5.6 7.4 9.6 10.1 8.3 11.2 12.0 5.5 3.2 N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.6 0.3 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.5 4.1 3.5 3.7 2.0 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 2.0 3.5 4.4 6.9 5.1 0.8

1. 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.5 1.6 6.2 5.4 0.1 #

0.1

1. 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 2.1 3.4

0.1

0.4 0.7

1. #

1. 4.0 3.6 3.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.9 6.5 8.6 11.1 19.7 19.0 3.5 3.3 0.3 6.0 7.1 7.5 6.5 5.6 5.0 5.2 5.8 5.5 7.3 8.8 9.7 8.8 12.1 13.0 6.3

3.4 TOTAL

16.5 33.4 27.9 15.1 5.9 1.0 # 100.0 8.7 TOTAL 11.8 34.7 28.0 17

.4 6.7 1.2 100.0 9.3

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05% JULY SPEED CLASS (MPH) AUGU S T SPE E D CLASS (MPH) DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG SP E E D N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 2.6 0.4 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.3 2.3 3.0 4.4 4.2 3.8 2.0 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.7 2.8 3.5 7.7 5.6 0.7

1. 0.1 0.2 0.2

1. #

0.1 0.2 1.0 1.4 0.9 4.8 5.1 0.1

0.4 0.4 0.1 1.8 3.0

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.5

1. 4.4 3.8 3.7 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.9 1.8 2.5 2.5 6.3 8.5 9.9 19.4 18.9 3.6 4.4 0.4 5.3 6.0 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.6 5.3 6.5 9.1 9.5 7.7 11.2 12.4 5.8 3.3 N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.0 2.8 0.6 2.5 1.8 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.6 2.7 3.2 5.1 4.1 3.8 2.3 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.7 1.6 2.9 4.1 7.6 5.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1

1. #

0.2 0.8 1.4 0.7 4.1 4.5 0.1

1. 0.1 0.2 0.1

1.3 2.3

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5

1. 4.3 3.4 3.3 1.9 2.4 2.7 3.4 2.4 2.5 3.2 6.4 8.6 11.2 18.2 17.4 3.9 4.1 0.6 5.0 5.1 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 5.5 4.8 6.6 8.1 8.5 7.5 10.6 11.8 5.4

3.0 TOTAL

15.0 37.8 26.1 14.1 5.7 1

.0 100.0 8.6 18.9 38.3 25.7 12.1 4.0 0.9 # 100.0 7.9

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-68 Table 2.3-9 Percentage Frequency D i stribution of 50-ft Wind Direction Versus Speed at HMS (1955-1970) (Continued)

SEPTE M BER SPEED CLASS (MPH) OCTOBER SP E E D C L A S S (MP H) DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 2.0 1.2 2.4 1.8 1.8 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 2.1 3.0 4.9 4.0 3.6 2.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.7 3.7 5.6 4.9 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1

1. #

0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.3 0.8 2.9 3.3 0.2 #

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.9 1.4

1. #

0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

1. 5.5 4.8 4.6 2.4 2.9 2.9 3.9 2.8 2.6 3.3 6.0 8.7 11.1 14.7 14.8 5.0 2.6 1.2 5.3 6.4 5.6 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.6 5.3 5.2 7.0 9.9 9.4 7.6 9.8 10.5 5.7 2.6 N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 2.6 2.1 2.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.1 1.6 2.7 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.8 4.6 4.7 4.4 2.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.5 3.0 3.6 5.0 4.0 0.6

1. 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.4 1.6 0.7 1.4 1.6 0.1

0.2 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.4 0.1

0.1

1. 4.8 3.6 3.5 2.2 2.8 3.3 5.1 3.3 3.5 4.5 7.3 9.1 10.7 13.2 12.9 5.3 1.7 2.7 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.1 3.6 4.2 5.7 6.7 9.7 11.3 9.5 7.1 8.1.

8.0 4.7

1.8 TOTAL

23.5 36.6 23.8 11.0 4.0 0.9 100.0 7.5 TOTAL 31.9 33.9 21.4 8.3 3.2 0.8 # # 100.0 6.7

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

1. DENOTES LE S S THAN 0.05%

NOVEMBER SPEED CLASS (MPH) DECE MBER SPE E D C L ASS (MPH) DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG SP E E D DI R E CTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG S P EED N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.5 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.3 2.1 2.5 3.6 3.0 1.4 4.7 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.1 3.4 4.6 5.9 2.8 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.9 1.9 4.9 4.7 1.0 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.3 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.2 #

0.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1

1. #

0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

1. #

1. 4.6 3.5 2.5 2.2 2.5 3.1 4.3 3.3 4.2 5.3 7.3 7.1 8.2 13.4 15.1 7.0 1.5 4.7 4.0 4.0 2.8 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.9 5.3 6.8 9.9 10.5 9.1 6.8 7.5 6.6 4.6 1.6 N NNE NE ENE E

E S E SE SSE S

SSW SW WSW W

WNW NW NNW VAR CA L M 2.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.8 2.9 1.5 6.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.8 2.7 5.7 7.3 2.4 0.1 0.3 0.2

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.7 1.5 5.3 6.0 0.9 0.2

1. #

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.1

1. # 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1

0.1 0.1

1. 4.2 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.9 4.3 3.4 3.6 4.4 7.0 6.7 6.9 14.8 18.2 6.3 1.6 6.8 3.5 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.6 3.6 4.7 6.7 11.1 11.8 8.6 6.0 6.9 6.7 4.3

1.7 TOTAL

39.7 30.0 18

.8 7.4 2.8 0.9 0.2 # 100.0 6.1 TOTAL 41.4 29.1 19

.0 6.7 2.5 1.1 0.2 # # 100.0 5.9

1. DENOTES LESS THAN 0.05%

1. DENOTES LESS THAN 0.05%

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-69 Table 2.3-9 Percentage Frequency D i stribution of 50-ft Wind Direction Versus Speed at HMS (1955-1970) (Continued)

COMP O S ITE OF ALL MONTHS SP EED C L ASS (MPH)

DIRECTION 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 46 TOTAL AVG SP EED N NNE NE ENE E E S E SE SSE S SSW SW W S W W WNW NW NNW VAR CALM 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.5 3.9 4.5 4.9 2.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.6 2.7 3.2 6.1 5.2 0.8 # 0.2 0.3 0.2 # # # 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.0 2.9 2.8 0.1 #

1. # # # # # # 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.9 1.3 # #

1. # #

1. # 0.2 0.3 0.2 # 0.1 0.3 #

1. 0.1 # # # # #

1. # #

1. 4.6 3.7 3.4 2.0 2.4 2.5 3.7 2.0 3.0 4.0 7.2 8.5 9.7 16.0 16.6 4.9 2.4 2.2 4.9 5.7 4.9 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.5 5.7 6.4 9.5 10.9 9.9 7.7 9.7 9.6 5.1 2.7 TOTAL 25.4 33.4 23.8 11.5 4.1 1.1 0.1 # # 100.0 7.6 # DENOTES LESS THAN 0.05%

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-70 Table 2.3-10 Percent Frequency of O cc u rrence of Wind Direction at the Hanford Reservation*

WIND DI R E CTION MONTH/YEAR/SITE/ELEVATION NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N VARI-ABLE CALM 4/74 CGS 33' 4/74 CGS (temp) 23' 4/74 HMS 50' April (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 2.64 2.64 1.53 3.2 3.06 3.61 2.36 3.2 0.42 1.11 1.25 2.0 0.83 1.81 1.53 2.3 1.53 3.75 1.94 2.0 3.19 4.72 2.64 3.1 7.50 6.81 2.50 2.5 8.89 10.42 1.81 3.2 13.06 6.11 3.61 4.7 7.78 4.31 6.81 9.5 5.69 4.72 15.28 11.2 8.75 10.28 13.19 11.8 17.08 16.11 22.08 16.6 9.31 7.50 17.08 14.3 4.17 2.36 2.78 3.7 3.19 2.92 1.53 4.2 0.97 3.19 1.67 2.1 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.4 5/74 CGS 33' 5/74 CGS (temp) 23' 5/74 HMS 50' May (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 2.15 0.94 1.88 3.1 1.75 2.69 1.34 3.7 1.21 0.94 0.81 2.3 1.88 2.82 1.75 2.4 2.02 2.28 3.36 2.2 2.42 4.57 1.88 3.3 8.06 8.20 1.75 2.7 12.37 11.83 2.15 2.8 14.25 9.14 4.70 3.3 6.99 6.32 8.47 6.4 9.27 7.53 14.92 9.8 10.62 8.20 14.25 11.4 12.90 8.06 21.24 18.1 6.32 5.24 13.31 17.2 3.09 2.55 1.75 3.6 1.61 1.48 1.88 3.9 2.02 6.05 3.90 3.2 0.00 0.13 0.67 0.6 6/74 CGS 33' 6/74 CGS (temp) 23' 6/74 HMS 50' June (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 2.50 3.06 1.94 3.6 2.92 4.72 2.92 3.7 4.31 3.75 2.22 2.0 3.33 4.44 2.50 2.2 3.61 7.22 3.75 2.2 5.14 7.50 4.03 2.8 7.22 7.78 2.64 2.1 7.64 6.67 2.36 2.6 7.08 6.53 3.06 3.0 4.03 5.42 4.44 6.5 3.89 3.61 7.22 8.5 7.22 4.86 6.25 11.2 9.31 10.0 24.03 19.6 7.36 10.0 19.58 18.9 3.61 4.72 4.72 3.5 2.50 2.22 2.36 3.9 0.69 7.50 5.56 3.3 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.4 7/74 CGS 33' 7/74 CGS (temp) 23' 7/74 HMS 50'

July (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 2.42 3.63 2.82 3.8 3.23 4.30 1.88 3.8 2.42 3.49 2.96 2.0 4.03 3.09 2.55 2.5 3.36 5.51 3.90 2.3 5.38 5.78 3.76 2.9 7.66 8.60 2.69 1.9 9.41 9.14 3.76 2.5 7.26 10.22 2.96 2.5 6.72 3.36 5.11 6.3 4.70 3.76 12.50 8.4 6.59 4.30 12.90 9.9 8.47 5.65 16.53 19.5 9.01 12.50 11.96 18.9 5.51 5.78 2.96 3.5 4.70 3.76 2.42 4.5 4.30 6.99 8.33 4.4 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.4 8/74 CGS 33' 8/74 CGS (temp) 23' 8/74 HMS 50' August (1955-1970) HM S (hist) 50' 6.45 6.72 5.65 3.4 5.65 8.87 3.49 2.9 2.02 4.03 2.55 2.0 2.42 4.03 2.42 2.4 2.82 3.76 2.69 2.7 4.30 5.38 2.55 3.4 8.47 10.48 2.55 2.4 10.08 10.62 2.96 2.5 8.87 5.51 3.49 3.2 4.44 3.49 3.36 6.4 3.76 2.42 7.12 8.6 3.49 2.69 10.62 11.3 9.81 7.39 16.80 18.3 9.01 8.74 16.13 17.4 6.59 7.12 5.65 3.9 7.66 3.49 4.97 4.4 2.42 4.30 6.18 4.2 0.00 0.40 0.81 0.6 9/74 CGS 33' 9/73 CGS (temp) 23' 9/73 HMS 50' September (1955-1970)

HMS (hist) 50' 9.58 4.72 7.36 4.9 5.42 6.11 4.86 4.6 5.56 3.61 1.67 2.4 3.33 4.86 3.75 2.9 3.75 3.75 2.50 2.8 2.92 5.42 2.50 3.9 2.92 7.92 2.64 2.7 8.19 8.47 2.92 2.8 5.28 5.28 3.61 3.4 4.03 4.72 4.58 6.0 2.36 2.36 8.61 8.8 5.00 3.75 6.81 11.0 7.78 7.36 15.28 14.7 9.03 6.94 15.97 14.8 8.19 7.08 7.22 4.9 12.92 8.47 4.03 5.6 2.64 9.17 3.06 2.6 0.00 0.00 2.64 1.2 10/74 CGS 33' 10/73 CGS (temp) 23' 10/73 HMS 50' October (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 5.65 3.76 2.42 3.5 5.78 4.70 3.76 3.6 6.59 2.69 2.15 2.3 3.23 4.30 1.75 2.8 2.28 3.63 3.23 3.3 4.84 6.85 3.63 5.1 6.05 9.68 2.96 3.4 6.85 11.96 3.23 3.5 5.65 7.53 5.65 4.5 3.49 5.51 10.89 7.4 3.76 1.75 11.16 9.2 4.97 4.84 9.27 10.7 8.60 7.12 14.78 13.2 7.12 6.85 11.42 12.9 8.06 4.97 4.84 5.4 8.60 3.23 2.82 4.7 2.69 8.20 1.48 1.8 0.13 0.27 4.57 2.7

• For some months, when concurrent measurements are not available for all si tes shown; previous y ear data is given.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-71 Table 2.3-10 Percent Frequency of O cc u rrence of Wind Direction at the Hanford Res e rvation* (Continued)

WIND D I RECTION MONTH/YEAR/

S I T E/ELEVATION NNE NE ENE E E S E SE SSE S S S W SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N VARI-ABLE CALM 11/74 C G S 33' 11/73 C G S (t e m p) 2 3' 11/73 HMS 50' Nove mber (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 5.28 2.22 3.33 3.4 3.61 4.86 1.67 2.6 4.31 1.81 1.81 2.3 1.11 1.53 1.81 2.5 2.08 4.44 3.61 3.1 4.72 8.19 6.11 4.4 7.36 9.72 3.06 3.3 10.42 8.19 5.00 4.2 10.69 5.42 6.25 5.2 6.94 2.22 7.50 7.4 3.33 2.22 4.86 7.1 4.86 5.69 5.42 8.4 7.08 16.25 13.89 13.4 10.42 8.06 19.31 15.1 8.33 3.75 5.97 7.0 6.94 2.92 4.44 4.6 1.81 3.61 0.56 1.4 0.00 0.28 5.42 4.6 12/74 C G S 33' 12/73 C G S (t e m p) 2 3' 12/73 HMS 50' Dece mber (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 2.28 2.28 2.02 2.5 2.15 5.38 1.48 2.3 1.21 2.28 2.15 1.9 0.94 2.82 2.28 2.3 1.34 3.76 2.28 2.8 2.82 7.53 3.49 4.2 8.06 9.95 3.49 3.4 13.44 10.62 4.30 3.5 11.02 5.24 4.70 4.4 4.84 3.09 7.12 7.1 6.05 2.02 8.20 6.8 6.99 4.30 9.54 6.9 10.89 9.41 13.84 14.8 12.23 10.48 20.02 18.2 8.33 4.84 4.57 6.3 4.57 2.82 1.75 4.2 1.61 7.93 2.15 1.6 0.00 0.67 6.59 6.8 1/75 C G S 33' 1/74 C G S (te m p) 23' 1/74 HMS 50' January (1955-1970)

HMS (hist) 50' 4.57 2.28 2.69 3.4 3.76 1.88 3.09 2.9 4.44 1.08 2.02 1.9 2.42 1.88 1.34 2.4 3.09 3.09 2.55 2.8 3.63 4.97 4.57 4.7 6.45 7.12 4.03 3.1 6.18 13.17 4.03 3.6 6.99 17.34 5.24 4.9 6.45 8.20 16.67 6.7 6.05 3.23 13.04 6.0 3.76 3.23 7.66 6.1 6.85 5.51 7.53 14.2 11.96 6.32 9.81 19.5 13.71 3.49 4.30 6.4 5.91 1.88 3.09 4.6 1.48 4.70 1.21 1.4 0.00 1.61 4.70 5.4 2/75 C G S 33' 2/74 C G S (te m p) 23' 2/74 HMS 50' February (1955-1970)

HMS (hist) 50' 4.76 1.04 2.08 4.4 2.38 1.79 2.68 3.5 1.93 1.34 2.08 1.9 0.89 1.64 1.19 2.1 1.64 4.32 4.17 2.2 2.98 7.44 4.46 3.4 7.74 9.08 2.83 2.7 7.89 13.54 5.36 2.9 8.18 13.39 8.63 4.2 4.91 6.25 10.57 7.5 4.61 7.14 12.95 7.4 3.57 5.21 10.86 9.3 5.21 8.33 10.12 15.4 18.76 5.65 10.71 18.4 14.43 2.38 4.91 5.8 8.18 1.34 2.38 5.0 1.19 8.93 2.23 1.5 0.00 0.19 1.79 2.4 3/75 C G S 33' 3/74 C G S (te m p) 23' 3/74 HMS 50' March (1955-1970)

H M S (hist) 50' 2.82 1.61 1.75 4.5 1.34 2.55 2.69 3.5 1.21 2.02 2.02 1.7 1.34 2.82 1.61 2.0 2.02 1.61 1.21 2.3 2.42 6.59 4.84 3.7 7.26 6.72 3.76 2.8 10.62 10.08 4.30 3.8 8.33 10.08 7.12 5.4 9.81 7.66 15.05 9.9 4.97 4.84 10.75 10.4 2.15 5.65 9.01 9.6 6.99 6.72 11.16 14.4 11.16 6.72 13.04 13.7 11.56 4.57 5.65 5.0 5.91 3.23 2.82 5.1 1.61 9.41 2.82 1.5 0.00 1.08 0.40

0.7 April

1974-March 1 9 75 C G S 33' 1955-1970 HMS (hi s t) 50' 4.25 3.7 3.42 3.4 2.97 2.0 2.16 2.4 2.47 2.6 3.73 3.7 7.07 2.8 9.35 3.2 8.89 4.1 5.88 7.2 4.89 8.5 5.67 9.8 9.27 16.0 10.08 16.6 7.93 4.9 6.04 4.5 1.96 2.4 0.01 2.2

• For some months, when concu rrent measurements are n o t availab l e for all s i tes shown; pre v ious y ear data is given.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-72 Table 2.3-11 Persistence of Wind Di r ection in One Sector (22.5 Degrees) from 4/74 through 3/75 at 33-ft Level (Stabil i ty Based On Te m p erature Di f f erence) DATE STA R TED DAY HOUR WIND DIR HOU R S OF PE R S I S TEN C E HOURS EACH S T ABI L ITY AVERAGE S P EED (MPH) 400 22 NW 14 0 0 3 11 0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A .00

.00 10.30 11.08 .00 171 10 S

10 0 1 7

2 0 UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A .00 16.00 18.14 15.00 .00

295 15

NNW

10 0 0 0 1

2 V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR .00

.00 .00 19.57 21.18

327 14

NW

10 7 0

0 0 0 M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA 9.98 .00

.00 .00

.00

425 6

NNW

10 5 5

0 0 0 NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS 3.81 4.06 .00

.00 .00 1 7 2

0 0 UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO 5.53 5.84 6.81 .00

.00 134 7 SS W 9 0 1 8

0 0 0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO .00 23.78 19.54 .00 .00 .00 219 17 WNW 9 0 2

2 5

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A .00 17.34 22.97 16.69 .00 393 2 NW 9 0 0

9 0

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A .00

.00 #999.0 (m issing data)

.00

404 2

NNW

9 0 0 0 0

1 V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR .00

.00 .00

.00 13.63 8 0 0 M S T A V S T A UNKNO 11.18 .00

.00 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-73 Table 2.3-11 Persistence of Wind Dir ection in One Sector (22.5 Degrees) from 4/74 through 3/75 at 33-ft Level (Continued) (Stabil i ty Based on Temperature Di f f erence) DATE STA R TED DAY HOUR WIND DIR HOU R S OF PE R S I S TEN C E HOURS EACH S T ABI L ITY AVERAGE S P EED (MPH) 407 5 SS W 9 0 0 V UNS UN S TA .00

.00

102 13

WNW

8 2 7

0 0 0 NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS 17.20 20.64 .00

.00 .00 5 1 2

0 0 UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO 16.67 19.07 16.91 .00

.00 132 13 WNW 8 0 6 1

1 0

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO .00 22.17 22.06 17.06 .00

.00 244 11 NNE 8 0 7

1 0

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A .00 15.35 12.87 .00

.00 271 16 NW 8 0 0 1

2 5 UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A .00 .00 18.52 16.92 11.63

363 10

S

8 0 0 0 0

5 V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR .00

.00 .00

.00 13.70

396 21

NW

8 3 0

0 0 0 M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA 13.80 .00

.00 .00

.00

401 12

NNW

8 4 4

0 0

0 0 NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO V UNS UN S TA 9.10 8.16 .00

.00

.00

.00

402 6

N

8 5 3 0 0 0 NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS 12.80 11.49 .00

.00 .00 0 7 1

0 0 UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO .00 9.04 9.99 .00

.00 426 14 S W 8 0 2 3

3 0

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR V S T A V S T A UNKNO .00 18.58 16.88 15.28 .00

.00 430 8 NNW 8 0 6

1 1

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A .00 10.54 10.68 7.82 .00 0 UNKNO .00 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-74 Table 2.3-12 Persistence of Wind Direction in Two Sectors (45 Degrees) from 4.74 through 3/75 at CGS for 33-ft Level (Stability Based on Temperature Difference)

DATE STARTED DAY HOUR WIND DIRECTIONS HOURS OF PERSISTENCE HOURS EACH STABILITY AVERAGE SPEED (MPH) 400 22 NW NNW 26 0 0 8 15 3 V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA .00 .00 11.80 11.05 6.23 379 12 NW NNW 23 0 0 0 6 17 UNKNO V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA .00 .00

.00 3.73 3.78 399 23 NW NNW 22 0 0 0 0 7 V STA UNKNO V UNS UNSTA NEUTR .00

.00 .00 .00 15.79 424 21 NW NNW 20 15 0 0 0 2 M STA V STA UNKNO V UNS UNSTA 12.65 .00 .00 .00 4.20 102 1 NNW NW 19 8 10 0 0 0 NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO V UNS 5.88 7.18 .00

.00 .00 8 2 9 0 0 UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO 18.20 28.03 21.20 .00 .00 400 17 WNW NW 19 0 0 3 16 0 0 V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO .00 .00 10.30 11.44 .00 .00 244 5 N NNE 18 0 7 7 4 0 V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA .00 15.35 15.01 9.66 .00 404 2 NNW N 18 0 0 0 9 9 UNKNO V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA .00 .00

.00 11.56 10.83 431 10 NW NNW 18 0 0 0 5 5 V STA UNKNO V UNS UNSTA NEUTR .00

.00 .00 17.79 17.77 171 3 S SSW 17 8 0 0 1 8 M STA V STA UNKNO V UNS UNSTA 8.45 .00 .00 16.00 18.37 224 17 NNW NW 17 5 3 0 0 0 NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO V UNS 16.60 13.33 .00

.00 .00 4 3 10 0 0 UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO 10.07 14.39 12.00 .00

.00 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-75 Table 2.3-12 Persistence of Wind Dir ection in Two Sectors (45 Degrees) from 4.74 through 3/75 at CGS for 33-ft Level (Continued) (Stabil i ty Based on Temperature Di f f erence) DATE STA R TED DAY HOUR WIND DI R E CTIONS HOU R S OF PE R S I S TEN C E HOURS EACH S T ABI L ITY AVERAGE S P EED (MPH) 401 21 NNW N 17 0 0 7 3

7 0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO .00

.00 9.04 8.95 6.78 .00 406 21 SSW SW 17 0 0

2 15 0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A .00

.00 17.20 21.52 .00 438 1 SSE S 17 0 0 2

2 7 UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A .00 .00 7.67 5.47 7.21

396 17

WNW NW

16 6 0 0 0 10 V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA NEUTR 8.80 .00 .00

.00 8.80

423 8

NW NNW

16 6 0

0 0 0 M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA 7.94 .00

.00 .00

.00

98 11

WNW NW

15 10 6 0

0 0 3 NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS UN S TA 7.61 5.58 .00

.00 .00 15.67

253 15

WNW NW

15 4 8

0 0 0 NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO

V UNS 14.00 11.62 .00

.00 .00 0 2 9

4 0 UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO .00 16.41 11.59 7.27 .00 293 11 W WNW 15 0 4 3

8 0

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A UNKNO .00 16.25 18.27 9.39 .00

.00 355 6 WSW W 15 0 0

7 8

0 V UNS UN S TA NEUTR M S T A V S T A .00

.00 25.65 15.14 .00 0 UNKNO .00 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-76 Table 2.3-12a Longest Persistence of Wind Direction in On e (22.5 Degrees) and Two (45 Degrees) Sectors During First and Second A nnual Cycles at 33-ft Level (Stability Based on Temperature Difference)

First Annual Cycle (April '74 - March '75)

Second Annual Cycle (April '75 - March '76)

MONTH WIND DIRECTION HOURS OF PERSISTENCE HOURS OF EACH STABILITY AVERAGE WIND SPEED MONTH WIND DIRECTION HOURS OF PERSISTENCE HOURS OF EACH STABILITY AVERAGE WIND SPEED January NW 14 0 0

3 11 0 0

V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO

.00

.00 10.30 11.08 .00 .00 February NNE 33 0 3 10 20 0 0 V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO

.00 30.22 29.04 23.15 .00 .00 January NW, NNW 26 0 0

8 15 3 0

V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO

.00

.00 11.86 11.05 6.23 .00 January N, NNE 35 0 3 10 22 0 0

V UNS UNSTA NEUTR M STA V STA UNKNO

.00 30.22 29.04 21.84 .00

.00 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-77 Table 2.3-13 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Speed at the Hanford Reservation (1)

Wind Speed Range, mph (2) Month/Year/Site/Elevations

Calm 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-Up Average Speed (mph) 4/74 CGS 33'

4/74 CGS (temp) 23'

4/74 HMS 50'

April (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.00 0.42 9.58 13.19 9.72 16.8 31.11 37.50 26.11 31.6 24.17 23.47 33.33 26.6 18.19 17.78 19.72 16.2 6.25 4.72 7.64 6.6 1.81 0.42 3.06 2.2 9.8 8.7 10.3 9.0 5/74 CGS 33'

5/74 CGS (temp) 23' 5/74 HMS 50' May (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.13 0.67 12.50 14.11 12.63 16.6 36.16 38.17 30.11 33.3 33.33 28.23 32.66 27.9 12.77 11.96 18.15 15.1 3.63 2.55 5.38 6.0 0.54 0.67 0.40 1.1 8.4 7.9 9.0 8.8 6/74 CGS 33'

6/74 CGS (temp) 23'

6/74 HMS 50'

June (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.00 0.42 11.25 21.67 13.61 11.7 44.03 47.64 35.42 34.6 23.89 18.06 26.11 28.1 9.72 9.03 15.69 17.4 3.61 3.06 7.64 6.8 1.11 0.56 1.11 1.4 8.5 6.9 9.0 9.2 7/74 CGS 33'

7/74 CGS (temp) 23'

7/74 HMS 50' July (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.13 0.00 16.13 25.40 16.26 15.0 43.95 45.30 38.44 37.8 24.33 19.89 27.28 26.2 8.74 8.06 13.44 14.2 1.61 1.21 4.57 5.8 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.0 7.2 6.4 8.1 8.6 8/74 CGS 33'

8/74 CGS (temp) 23'

8/74 HMS 50' August (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.40 0.81 21.91 27.82 16.53 18.9 46.37 46.24 43.28 38.2 19.35 17.20 26.21 25.6 7.12 6.85 7.53 12.3 3.36 1.21 5.11 4.2 0.13 0.00 0.54 0.8 6.8 6.0 7.5 8.0 9/74 CGS 33'

9/73 CGS (temp) 23'

9/73 HMS 50' September (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.00 2.64 27.78 26.67 20.42 23.6 38.06 42.08 36.25 36.8 22.50 22.50 28.33 23.8 8.75 7.50 8.75 10.9 1.39 1.25 3.19 4.1 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.8 6.5 6.2 7.1 7.5 (1) For some months, when, concurrent measurements are not available for all sites shown; previ ous year data is given.

(2) HMS (hist) 50' calm values are incl uded in the 1-3 mph range group.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-78 Table 2.3-13 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Speed at the Hanford Reservation (1) (Continued)

Month/Year/Site/Elevation

Calm 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-Up Average Speed (mph) 10/74 CGS 33'

10/73 CGS (temp) 23'

10/73 HMS 50' October (1955-1970) RMS (hist) 50' 0.13 0.27 4.57 44.49 30.91 25.81 32.1 34.27 40.99 34.95 34.0 11.16 16.80 23.39 21.3 3.36 8.87 7.53 8.3 0.94 2.15 3.23 3.3 0.00 0.00 0.54 1.0 4.8 6.2 6.7 6.7 11/74 CGS 33'

11/73 CGS (temp) 23'

11/73 HMS 50' November (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.28 5.42 34.72 17.92 19.86 39.7 39.58 37.08 33.89 30.1 16.11 21.53 26.67 18.9 5.97 7.78 6.81 7.5 1.53 2.36 5.28 2.7 0.00 0.00 2.08 1.1 5.8 7.1 7.5 6.2 12/74 CGS 33' 12/73 CGS (temp) 23'

12/73 HMS 50' December (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 0.67 6.59 31.05 41.53 25.13 41.4 37.23 31.72 31.05 29.2 21.51 15.86 23.79 18.9 6.05 8.74 9.95 6.7 1.61 1.21 3.09 2.5 1.21 0.27 0.40 1.3 6.4 5.7 6.7 6.0 1/75 CGS 33'

1/74 CGS (temp) 23'

1/74 HMS 50' January (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 2.02 4.70 29.44 29.97 21.10 38.8 36.83 24.46 26.48 30.2 19.76 15.46 21.24 19.5 5.38 16.40 13.31 7.6 2.02 7.80 7.66 2.7 0.67 3.90 5.51 1.2 6.4 8.7 9.3 6.4 2/75 CGS 33'

2/74 CGS (temp) 23'

2/74 HMS 50' February (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 1.19 1.79 22.47 26.64 20.09 30.8 36.90 29.17 33.63 31.0 23.36 22.17 23.66 23.9 9.82 15.03 15.63 9.3 5.21 4.46 4.61 3.2 1.49 1.34 0.60 1.7 7.8 7.6 8.0 7.0 3/75 CGS 33'

3/74 CGS (temp) 23'

3/74 HMS 50'

March (1955-1970) HMS (hist) 50' 0.00 1.08 0.40 13.04 28.90 16.94 20.0 31.85 31.32 33.33 32.6 27.02 18.68 25.81 26.1 14.11 12.77 13.04 13.5 4.44 3.36 7.66 5.4 1.08 3.36 2.82 2.4 8.7 7.8 9.1

8.4 April

1974 - March 1975 CGS 33'

1955-1970 HMS (hist) 50' 0.01 22.89 25.4 38.04 33.3 22.20 23.9 9.14 11.6 2.95 4.4 0.73 1.4 7.2 7.6 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-79 Table 2.3-14 Diurnal Variation of 33-ft Ele v ation Dry Bulb T e mperature ( F) at CGS and Mon t hly Average Dry Bulb Temperature

( F) at the Hanford R e servation Mont h/Year Hour April 19 7 4 May 19 7 4 June 19 7 4 Ju ly 19 7 4 Aug u st 19 7 4 September 19 7 4 October 19 7 4 Nove m b er 19 7 4 December 19 7 4 Janu a ry 19 7 5 Feb r uary 19 7 5 March 19 7 5 Annual A v erage (April 1 974 -March 19 7 5) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 46.7 46.1 44.9 44.4 43.3 43.6 45.3 49.2 51.8 54.2 56.2 57.9 59.3 60.5 60.9 60.9 60.3 58.8 56.1 53.6 51.8 50.3 48.9 47.7 51.0 49.8 48.3 46.9 45.8 47.0 50.9 54.4 56.8 59.0 61.3 63.1 64.9 66.3 67.5 67.7 67.4 66.2 63.9 60.3 57.7 56.0 54.2 52.7 63.7 62.1 60.3 58.1 57.5 59.6 63.8 68.0 72.7 75.3 78.0 80.5 82.3 83.8 85.1 84.6 85.1 84.1 81.9 77.8 73.7 70.7 68.0 66.0 66.5 64.5 62.2 60.8 59.7 61.0 65.3 69.3 73.0 75.1 77.3 79.4 81.3 83.2 84.7 85.2 85.2 84.7 82.7 78.7 75.5 73.0 70.8 68.9 66.8 64.6 63.0 61.2 60.0 59.6 63.6 68.8 72.9 76.4 79.1 81.6 84.0 86.2 87.5 88.4 88.4 87.1 83.7 79.6 75.7 73.6 71.0 69.0 58.2 57.1 56.3 55.3 54.1 53.0 53.9 58.9 64.8 68.6 72.0 75.2 77.8 79.8 81.0 81.6 81.2 78.4 73.6 69.4 67.1 64.5 62.3 60.4 45.6 44.7 43.3 42.6 41.3 40.8 40.4 43.4 48.3 52.7 56.4 59.5 62.0 63.7 64.8 65.1 63.7 60.0 56.4 53.5 51.3 49.4 48.2 46.4 40.3 40.1 39.6 39.5 39.0 38.7 38.3 38.3 39.9 41.6 43.8 45.4 46.7 47.4 47.6 46.9 45.0 43.5 42.7 42.1 41.6 41.0 40.2 40.0 35.3 35.3 35.1 35.0 34.9 34.1 33.8 33.8 34.4 35.8 37.9 39.6 41.0 41.7 41.5 40.5 38.8 37.7 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.1 35.2 35.1 30.9 30.8 30.4 30.6 30.1 30.0 29.4 29.5 30.3 31.7 33.0 34.9 35.7 36.5 37.2 36.7 35.2 33.9 32.9 32.1 31.5 31.1 31.0 30.8 30.6 30.5 30.1 30.2 30.1 29.8 29.6 29.3 31.3 33.9 35.6 37.6 38.6 39.3 39.7 39.5 38.7 36.8 35.3 34.4 33.8 32.8 32.4 31.6 37.5 36.6 35.9 35.0 34.9 34.7 35.1 37.4 40.6 42.9 45.2 46.9 48.6 49.4 50.3 50.8 50.0 47.9 44.9 42.7 41.2 40.1 39.2 38.1 47.9 46.9 45.9 45.1 44.3 44.4 45.8 48.4 51.2 54.3 56.2 58.4 60.1 61.6 62.4 62.3 61.7 60.4 57.7 55.2 53.3 51.7 50.2 49.0 Month l y Av e rage Dry Bulb Tempera t ure ( F)* (Site, Elevation)

CGS 33' CGS 7' CGS (temp) 3' HMS 3' 195 0-1970 HMS (hist) 3' 52.2 52.7 53.3 52.5 52.5 57.4 58.3 59.6 57.9 61.8 72.5 73.0 74.2 73.3 69.9 73.6 74.3 75.3 74.8 77.5 74.7 75.0 76.3 76.3 75.3 66.9 66.3 (65.0) 68.3 67.0 51.7 50.6 (51.2) 52.0 53.2 42.1 41.9 (39.7) 42.1 40.1 36.8 36.1 (37.8) 35.7 33.4 32.3 32.2 (29.0) 32.0 30.3 33.8 33.9 (40.7) 33.6 37.5 41.9 42.2 (45.4) 42.0 44.0 53.1 53.1 Not Computed 53.4 *For some months, when concurrent measurements are not available for all sites show n, former year data is given in parentheses.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-80 Table 2.3-15 Diurnal Variation of 33-ft Ele v ation Wet Bulb T e mperature

( F) at CGS and Mon t hly Average Wet Bulb T e mperature

( F) at the Hanford R e servation Mont h/Year Hour April 19 7 4 May 19 7 4 June 19 7 4 Ju ly 19 7 4 Aug u st 19 7 4 September 19 7 4 October 19 7 4 Nove m b er 19 7 4 December 19 7 4 Janu a ry 19 7 5 Feb r uary 19 7 5 March 19 7 5 Annual A v erage (April 1 974 -March 19 7 5) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 41.9 41.5 40.9 40.7 40.2 40.5 41.9 44.2 45.5 46.6 47.1 47.8 48.2 48.6 48.7 48.6 48.5 48.0 46.8 45.8 44.8 43.8 43.1 42.5 44.4 43.8 43.3 42.6 41.9 42.7 44.9 46.1 47.5 48.1 49.1 49.7 50.3 50.7 51.0 50.9 50.8 50.4 49.7 48.5 47.4 46.6 45.8 45.1 52.1 51.6 50.9 50.1 50.0 51.2 53.3 54.9 56.8 57.7 58.8 59.6 60.0 60.3 60.7 60.1 60.5 60.3 59.6 58.4 56.5 54.9 54.1 53.1 54.7 54.1 53.1 52.6 52.3 53.4 55.4 56.9 57.9 58.5 59.0 59.7 60.2 60.4 60.9 61.1 61.0 60.8 60.1 59.0 58.0 57.2 56.2 55.6 54.9 54.1 53.5 52.8 52.5 52.3 54.5 56.8 58.2 59.7 60.6 61.2 61.7 62.2 62.4 62.6 62.6 62.0 60.9 59.6 58.0 57.3 56.6 55.8 49.1 48.6 48.0 47.6 47.0 46.4 47.1 49.7 52.6 54.2 55..4 56.5 57.4 57.9 58.2 58.3 58.0 57.0 55.4 53.6 52.4 51.4 50.5 49.7 40.7 40.1 39.3 38.9 38.0 37.8 37.5 39.5 42.7 44.9 46.7 48.0 49.1 49.7 50.2 50.3 49.8 48.4 46.4 44.8 43.4 42.4 41.8 41.1 38.0 38.0 37.6 37.6 37.3 37.1 36.8 36.9 38.2 39.3 40.8 41.6 42.3 42.6 42.8 42.4 41.4 40.5 40.0 39.6 39.0 38.5 37.8 37.7 33.5 33.6 33.5 33.4 33.2 32.7 32.4 32.2 32.6 34.0 35.4 36.4 37.3 37.6 37.6 36.9 35.8 35.1 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.1 33.5 33.5 29.0 29.0 28.7 28.9 28.5 28.4 27.9 27.8 28.4 29.6 30.6 31.8 32.3 32.8 33.2 32.9 31.9 30.9 30.4 29.7 29.4 29.0 29.0 28.8 28.9 28.7 28.5 28.4 28.3 28.0 27.8 27.6 29.5 31.2 32.1 33.2 33.9 34.2 34.5 34.4 34.0 32.9 32.0 31.4 31.1 30.5 30.3 29.6 34.0 33.4 32.9 32.3 32.2 32.1 32.4 34.3 36.1 37.1 38.3 39.0 39.5 40.0 40.4 40.6 40.1 39.2 37.8 36.8 35.9 35.2 34.6 34.0 41.8 41.4 40.9 40.6 40.2 40.3 41.0 42.3 43.8 45.3 46.1 47.0 47.7 48.2 48.4 48.3 48.0 47.2 46.2 45.2 44.3 43.5 42.8 42.3 Month l y Av e r age Wet Bulb Te m p erature ( F)* (Site, El e v ation)

CGS 33' CGS (temp) 3'

HMS 3' 1950-1970 HMS (hist) 3' 44.7 45.9 43.9 42.8 47.2 49.8 46.5 49.1 56.0 60.0 54.5 54.5 57.4 61.0 56.3 57.9 58.0 62.6 57.0 57.3 52.6 (54.6) 52.0 52.6 43.8 (45.5) 42.0 45.4 39.3 (37.8) 38.0 36.4 34.5 (36.4) 33.0 31.2 30.0 (26.4) 30.0 27.9 30.9 (36.6) 31.0 33.6 36.2 (39.3) 36.0 37.3 44.3 Not Calculated 43.4 *For some months, when concurrent measurements are not available for all sites show n, former year data is given in parentheses.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-81 Table 2.3-16 Diurnal Variation of 33 ft Ele v ation Dew Point Temperatu r e ( F) at C G S and Monthly Average Dew Point Temperatu r e ( F) at the Hanford Reservation Mont h/Year Hour April 19 7 4 May 19 7 4 June 19 7 4 Ju ly 19 7 4 Aug u st 19 7 4 September 19 7 4 October 19 7 4 Nove m b er 19 7 4 December 19 7 4 Janu a ry 19 7 5 Feb r uary 19 7 5 March 19 7 5 Annual A v erage (April 1 974 -March 19 7 5) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 36.5 36.5 36.6 36.8 36.7 37.0 38.3 38.8 38.8 38.8 37.8 37.3 36.8 36.4 35.9 35.8 36.0 36.6 37.0 37.3 37.1 36.8 36.7 36.6 37.3 37.5 37.8 37.9 37.7 38.1 38.6 37.3 37.8 37.2 36.7 36.2 35.5 35.1 34.6 34.0 34.1 34.5 35.2 36.3 36.6 36.8 37.1 37.1 42.0 42.5 42.7 43.1 43.3 44.1 44.6 44.3 44.4 44.2 44.2 43.8 43.3 42.6 42.3 41.5 41.9 42.4 42.8 43.5 42.7 41.7 42.4 42.1 45.1 45.4 45.5 45.7 46.2 47.2 47.5 47.5 46.7 46.0 45.7 45.3 44.4 43.3 43.1 43.1 42.7 42.9 42.6 43.5 44.4 44.7 44.5 44.9 45.4 45.6 45.8 45.9 46.3 46.4 47.3 47.8 47.3 47.7 47.4 46.7 46.0 45.3 44.5 44.0 44.0 43.7 44.1 44.5 44.4 44.6 45.2 45.3 40.5 40.6 39.9 40.1 40.1 39.8 40.4 41.0 41.8 41.7 41.4 40.9 40.4 39.7 39.4 39.0 38.5 38.6 39.4 39.2 38.8 38.9 39.2 39.5 35.0 34.6 34.4 34.6 34.0 34.2 34.0 35.0 36.3 36.3 36.2 36.0 35.6 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.5 36.1 35.3 34.8 34.0 33.8 34.2 34.7 35.4 35.5 35.4 35.6 35.4 35.3 35.1 35.2 36.4 36.7 37.4 37.5 37.4 37.3 37.7 37.4 37.4 37.1 37.0 36.7 36.2 35.5 35.1 35.0 31.2 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.0 30.8 30.5 30.0 30.3 31.7 32.2 32.3 32.5 32.1 32.4 32.1 31.8 31.5 31.1 31.0 31.3 31.2 31.1 31.2 26.0 26.1 25.9 26.0 26.0 25.8 25.5 25.1 25.4 26.4 26.9 27.0 27.2 27.5 27.4 27.4 27.0 26.4 25.9 26.0 25.8 25.6 25.6 26.1 26.0 25.9 25.4 25.4 25.2 24.9 24.9 26.8 27.1 26.9 26.8 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.2 27.2 27.1 27.2 27.1 27.2 27.1 27.2 26.6 28.6 28.6 28.3 28.4 28.4 28.2 28.5 30.0 29.6 28.8 28.3 27.6 27.2 26.6 26.3 26.3 25.9 26.7 27.6 28.3 28.3 27.9 27.9 27.9 35.8 35.9 35.9 36.0 35.9 36.1 36.3 36.5 36.8 37.1 36.8 36.5 36.1 35.7 35.5 35.2 35.2 35.4 35.5 35.7 35.6 35.4 35.6 35.6 Month l y Av e r age Dew Point Tempera t ure ( F) (Site/Elevation)

CGS 33' HMS 3' 19 5 0-1 970 H MS (hi s t) 3' 36.6 33.3 30.4 36.6 34.0 36.0 43.0 38.2 41.2 44.9 41.0 42.3 45.6 43.2 42.8 39.9 38.9 39.5 35.0 31.0 36.9 36.3 33.9 31.1 31.4 29.2 27.5 26.3 26.0 23.2 26.5 25.5 27.4 27.9 26.0 27.3 35.9 33.4 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 54 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT A p ril 2000 LDC N-9 9-0 0 0 2.3-82 Table 2.3-17 Frequency of Occurrence, Dry Bulb Temperatu r e ( F) Versus Time of D a y from 4/74 through 3/75 for 33-ft Level

TI M E O F D A Y -20

-15 -20

-15

-10 1 0

0 0 2 0

0 0 3 0

0 0 4 0

0 0 5 0

0 0 6 0

0 0 7 0

0 0 8 0

0 0 9 0

0 0 10 0 0

0 11 0 0

0 12 0 0

0 13 0 0

0 14 0 0

0 15 0 0

0 16 0 0

0 17 0 0

0 18 0 0

0 19 0 0

0 20 0 0

0 21 0 0

0 22 0 0

0 23 0 0

0 24 0 0

0 T O T A L 0 0

0 5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 20 0 0

0 0

1 2 0 0

0 0

1 2 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 7 0 0

0 0

0 5 0 0

0 0

0 7 0 0

0 0

0 8 0 0

0 0

0 4 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 2 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 2 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

1 3 0 0

0 0

1 3 0 0

0 0

1 2 0 0

0 0

5 69 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 11 22 44 42 40 51 11 26 46 39 45 52 13 27 43 45 48 48 13 29 44 46 54 46 14 30 42 48 57 48 13 37 41 44 57 43 17 28 41 46 45 42 14 27 31 39 36 38 10 25 26 24 35 38 7 17 26 27 28 37 5 13 25 31 28 35 4 9 21 30 31 32 4 9 12 32 28 34 3 9 14 21 37 29 3 9 11 23 36 29 3 8 14 26 34 29 4 9 20 28 26 41 6 11 19 32 34 36 7 10 29 37 35 33 9 8 37 35 35 29 9 9 41 34 38 34 9 11 40 45 33 39 9 13 47 40 43 37 10 20 45 38 46 39 208 416 759 852 929 919 50 55 60 65 70 75 55 60 65 70 75 80 33 31 27 25 26 7 30 33 29 26 20 2 34 32 32 25 11 1 40 31 32 21 3 0 31 33 29 20 2 0 38 28 30 23 2 0 28 34 28 25 18 2 28 30 28 28 22 17 34 17 24 30 18 16 35 24 20 31 33 18 33 33 20 25 31 29 32 34 27 19 26 37 32 33 22 27 27 20 33 30 22 32 24 22 36 25 24 26 26 26 39 21 24 24 27 24 25 24 24 24 25 21 23 30 23 17 29 19 26 31 21 25 16 31 41 27 19 27 30 17 40 27 21 29 23 27 34 26 33 23 26 23 32 29 28 24 30 20 35 29 26 35 20 12 792 692 613 611 515 391 80 85 90 95 100 105 85 90 95 100 105 110 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 1 0

0 0

0 0 16 1 0

0 0

0 15 10 1 0

0 0 15 16 5 0

0 0 18 19 9 1

0 0 37 12 20 3 0

0 34 17 20 9 0

0 20 31 16 14 2 0 17 30 21 14 3 0 22 26 20 16 3 0 27 19 18 13 2 0 16 23 13 7 1

0 22 16 8 0

0 0 19 8 0

0 0

0 14 2 0

0 0

0 5 1

0 0

0 0 4 0

0 0

0 0 302 231 151 77 11 0 110 UN K N O T O T A L 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 18 365 0 47 365 0 33 365 0 18 365 0 14 365 0 12 365 0 8 365 0 7 365 0 6 365 0 6 365 0 6 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 217 87 6 0 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 54 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT A p ril 2000LDCN-99-000 2.3-83 Table 2.3-18 Frequency of Occurrence, Wet Bulb Temperature (F) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 for 33-ft Level

TIME OF DAY

-20

-15 -20

-15

-10 1 0

0 0 2 0

0 0 3 0

0 0 4 0

0 0 5 0

0 0 6 0

0 0 7 0

0 0 8 0

0 0 9 0

0 0 10 0 0

0 11 0 0

0 12 0 0

0 13 0 0

0 14 0 0

0 15 0 0

0 16 0 0

0 17 0 0

0 18 0 0

0 19 0 0

0 20 0 0

0 21 0 0

0 22 0 0

0 23 0 0

0 24 0 0

0 TOTAL 0 0

0 5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 20 0 0

0 0

2 1 0 0

0 0

2 2 0 0

0 0

2 4 0 0

0 0

1 7 0 0

0 0

1 9 0 0

0 0

1 8 0 0

0 0

1 9 0 0

0 0

2 8 0 0

0 0

1 5 0 0

0 0

1 3 0 0

0 0

1 3 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0

0 2 0 0

0 0

0 2 0 0

0 0

0 2 0 0

0 0

1 1 0 0

0 0

1 1 0 0

0 0

1 3 0 0

0 0

1 4 0 0

0 0

2 2 0 0

0 0

2 2 0 0

0 0

2 1 0 0

0 0 25 88 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 14 35 44 54 73 43 15 33 51 51 73 44 18 35 46 58 65 52 14 42 47 57 65 54 14 41 50 60 61 51 16 43 45 67 56 47 18 41 42 60 53 51 15 34 37 51 55 47 9 30 32 44 52 39 8 24 33 41 51 49 8 14 39 45 52 51 6 10 43 39 50 54 6 7 33 50 45 52 6 7 26 49 53 50 6 7 24 51 51 52 5 10 28 50 51 48 7 11 31 50 48 47 8 14 35 52 44 49 10 18 41 48 48 52 9 18 48 46 50 55 8 23 47 48 62 43 10 26 55 44 56 52 9 35 47 56 57 44 12 39 44 49 65 52 251 597 968 1220 1336 1178 50 55 60 65 70 75 55 60 65 70 75 80 48 39 8 0

0 0 50 33 6 1

0 0 49 27 5 0

0 0 48 23 3 0

0 0 51 18 4 0

0 0 51 23 3 0

0 0 38 39 8 0

0 0 39 41 18 0 0

0 43 36 23 3 0

0 42 38 33 5 0

0 39 49 39 6 0

0 44 50 43 8 0

0 49 50 46 12 0 0 49 52 47 15 0 0 52 47 45 21 0 0 51 46 44 24 0 0 51 44 45 23 0 0 43 51 44 17 0 0 42 46 41 14 0 0 49 39 35 9 0

0 55 45 22 4 0

0 48 46 19 1 0

0 49 48 11 1 0

0 44 44 9 0

0 0 1124 974 601 164 0 0 80 UNKNO TOTAL 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 5 365 0 5 365 0 5 365 0 18 365 0 48 365 0 37 365 0 19 365 0 15 365 0 12 365 0 8 365 0 7 365 0 6 365 0 6 365 0 6 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 3 365 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 4 365 0 234 8760 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 54 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT A p ril 2000 LDC N-9 9-0 0 0 2.3-84 Table 2.3-19 Frequency of Occurrence, Dew Poi n t Temperature

( F) Versus Time of Day from 4

/74 through 3/75 for 33-ft Level T I ME O F DAY -40

-35 -40

-35

-30 1 0

0 0 2 0

0 0 3 0

0 0 4 0

0 0 5 0

0 0 6 0

0 0 7 0

0 0 8 0

0 0 9 0

0 0 10 0 0

0 11 0 0

0 12 0 0

0 13 0 0

0 14 0 0

0 15 0 0

0 16 0 0

0 17 0 0

0 18 0 0

0 19 0 0

0 20 0 0

0 21 0 0

0 22 0 0

0 23 0 0

0 24 0 0

0 T O T A L 0 0

0-30

-25

-20

-15 5 -25

-20

-15 5 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1

4 12 23 45 0 2

2 14 22 47 0 1

5 12 24 44 0 2

4 13 22 46 0 2

4 13 28 43 0 3

2 16 23 44 0 2

3 16 23 46 1 1

2 16 22 48 1 1

3 8 17 48 1 1

4 5 18 48 1 2

3 7 21 44 1 3

3 10 20 44 1 1

4 11 20 48 1 3

2 11 23 47 1 3

3 11 25 48 1 2

4 10 26 49 1 2

3 11 28 49 0 2

4 13 24 45 0 1

5 11 22 47 0 1

4 10 25 47 0 1

2 12 26 45 0 1

2 13 30 43 0 1

2 16 24 49 0 1

3 13 28 48 10 40 77 284 564 11 1 2 30 35 40 45 50 55 35 40 45 50 55 60 74 86 67 38 7 3 70 77 77 38 8 3 74 74 73 42 9 2 67 77 73 44 10 2 65 81 65 48 6 4 68 77 66 46 11 2 60 78 64 42 21 4 48 81 59 44 20 4 47 70 56 47 16 4 45 74 65 48 15 5 53 87 56 54 15 4 56 89 66 47 9 3 59 90 67 42 8 3 69 80 73 40 6 2 66 78 78 38 6 1 66 90 73 30 7 1 66 92 69 29 6 3 74 86 71 24 9 3 76 86 74 27 10 3 73 88 70 30 10 3 76 91 68 28 6 4 76 91 62 33 8 1 70 88 65 35 7 3 73 78 67 40 6 4 15 7 1 19 9 1 16 2 6 934 238 71 60 65 70 75 80 65 70 75 80 UNKNO 1 0

0 0

0 4 1 0

0 0

0 4 1 0

0 0

0 4 1 0

0 0

0 4 1 0

0 0

0 5 2 0

0 0

0 5 1 0

0 0

0 5 1 0

0 0

0 18 0 0

0 0

0 47 0 0

0 0

0 36 0 0

0 0

0 18 0 0

0 0

0 14 0 0

0 0

0 11 0 0

0 0

0 8 0 0

0 0

0 7 0 0

0 0

0 6 0 0

0 0

0 6 0 0

0 0

0 6 0 0

0 0

0 3 1 0

0 0

0 3 1 0

0 0

0 3 1 0

0 0

0 4 1 0

0 0

0 4 0 0

0 0

0 4 13 0 0

0 0 229 TOTAL 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 87 6 0 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-85 Table 2.3-20 Monthly Averages of Psy c hrometric Data Based on P e riod of Record (1950-1970)

AVERAGES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC YEAR DRY BULB WET BULB REL HUM.

DEWPOINT 30.3 27.9 76.0 23.2 37.5 33.6 69.7 27.4 44.0 37.3 55.0 27.3 52.5 42.8 46.4 30.4 61.8 49.1 41.8 36.0 69.9 54.5 39.4 41.2 77.5 57.9 31.5 42.3 75.3 57.3 34.9 42.8 67.0 52.6 39.9 39.5 53.2 45.4 57.7 36.9 40.1 36.4 72.6 31.1 33.4 31.2 80.8 27.5 53.5 43.8 53.8 33.8 MONTHLY AVERAGE EXTREMES

DRY BULB HIGHEST YEAR LOWEST YEAR 43.0 1953 12.9 1950 44.0 1958 25.8 1956 48.7 1968 39.6 1955 56.2 1956 48.3 1955 68.7 1958 57.2 1962 75.5 1969 64.2 1953 82.8 1960 73.2 1963 82.5 1967 70.6 1964 72.0 1967 61.6 1970 59.1 1952 50.3 1968 45.8 1954 32.3 1955 38.8 1953 26.5 1964 56.3 1953 51.0 1955+

WET BULB HIGHEST YEAR LOWEST YEAR 39.3 1953 12.4 1950 40.7 1958 23.4 1956 40.8 1963 32.9 1955 45.1 1962 39.3 1955 54.6 1958 45.4 1959 58.6 1958 51.4 1954 61.2 1958 55.6 1954 61.1 1961 54.9 1964 56.5 1963 48.3 1970 47.7 1962 42.4 1970 42.3 1954 29.6 1955 35.8 1966 25.0 1964 46.5 1958 41.8 1955 REL HUM. HIGHEST YEAR LOWEST YEAR 89 1960 60 1963 87 1963 54 1967 66 1950 44 1965 64 1963 37 1966 *52 1962+

31 1966 54 1950 34 1960 40 1955 22 1959 44 1968 24 1967 55 1969 34 1952 74 1962 42 1952 80 1956 64 1963+ 90 1950 69 1968 58 1950+

49 1967 DEWPOINT HIGHEST YEAR LOWEST YEAR 34.4 1953 6.5 1950 36.7 1958 17.3 1956 34.0 1961 20.8 1965+ 37.1 1963 26.2 1955 43.8 1957 30.4 1964 47.5 1958 37.5 1954 46.6 1958 35.4 1959 46.9 1961 38.4 1955 45.4 1963 33.8 1970 43.5 1962 32.1 1970 38.3 1954 24.0 1959 34.3 1950 21.0 1951 37.7 1958 31.5 1955 +Also in Earl ier Years *Although not included in these tables, an average of 63% was recorded in 1948 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-86 Table 2.3-21 Diurnal Variation of Preci p itation Intensity (Inches/Hour) at CGS and M onthly Total Precipi t a ti o n (Inches) at the Hanford Reservati o n HOUR APRIL 1974 MAY 1974 JUNE 1974 JULY 1974 AUGU ST 1974 SEPTE M BER 1974 OCTOBER 1974 NOVEMBER 1974 DECE M BER 1974 JANUARY 1975 FEB R UA R Y 1975 MA RCH 1975 AVERAGE F O R HOUR (A PRIL 1974 - M A RCH 1975) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.032 0.016 0.016 0.024 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.080 0.036 0.136 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.072 0.000 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.040 0.032 0.016 0.000 0.016 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.056 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.024 0.056 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.036 0.040 0.028 0.052 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.040 0.032 0.020 0.020 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.056 0.020 0.036 0.024 0.032 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.024 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.016 0.064 0.072 0.020 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.056 0.024 0.036 0.024 0.032 0.048 0.040 0.032 0.032 0.020 0.024 0.016 0.048 0.024 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.024 0.016 0.072 0.040 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.064 0.036 0.000 0.024 0.016 0.000 0.020 0.032 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.048 0.032 0.024 0.028 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.088 0.000 0.016 0.080 0.071 0.029 0.026 0.018 0.030 0.045 0.026 0.029 0.039 0.036 0.034 0.022 0.032 0.024 0.033 0.029 0.038 0.026 0.034 0.032 0.040 0.021 0.040 0.038 MONTHLY TOTAL PR E C I P ITATION (INCHE S)

CGS H M S HMS (hist) 1946-19 7 0 Mean Total 0.55 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.50 0.06 0.12 0.66 0.45 0.71 0.16 0.00 trace 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.30 0.10 0.21 0.61 0.56 0.71 0.80 0.67 0.97 0.81 0.93 1.43 0.97 0.67 0.98 0.58 0.52 0.33 0.38 4.92 6.21 6.53 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-87 Table 2.3-22 Frequency of Occurrence, Precipitation (Inches/Hour) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 at CGS

Time of Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24TOTAL 016 6 5 7 4 5 5 8 5 6 4 5 5 6 6 8 7 9 8 7 8 4 3 8 10149 050 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 121 100 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 500 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-88 Table 2.3-22a Annual Frequency of Occu rrence of Wind Direction and Wind Speed Versus Precipitation Intensity FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FOOT LEVEL RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL .016 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (MPH)

NNE NE ENE CALM 0 0 0 1-3 2 2

2 4-7 2 3

1 8-12 0 0

0 13-18 0 0

0 19-24 0 0

0 25-UP 0 0

0 UNKNO 0 0

0 TOTAL 4 5

3 E ESE SE SSE S SSW 0 0

0 0

0 0 1 7

1 4

3 3 4 2

1 6

3 3 0 0

2 4

5 4 0 0

1 4

0 3 0 0

0 1

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 5 9

5 21 11 14 SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 0 0

0 0

0 0 1 1

0 0

5 2 3 2

3 5 10 10 4 1

2 7

5 2 1 0

0 0

1 0 0 1

0 0

0 0 0 0

1 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 9 5

6 12 21 14 N VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL 0 0

0 0

0 0 2

0 0 36 1 1

0 0 60 0 0

0 0 36 0 0

0 0 10 0 0

0 0

3 0 0

0 0

1 0 0

0 1

1 1 3

0 1 149 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FOOT LEVEL RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL .050 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (MPH)

NNE NE ENE CALM 0 0

0 1-3 1 1

0 4-7 1 0

0 8-12 0 0

0 13-18 0 0

0 19-24 0 0

0 25-UP 0 0

0 UNKNO 0 0

0 TOTAL 2 1

0 E ESE SE SSE S SSW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

1 3

0 2 0 0

0 2

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

1 5

0 2 SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 1 1 0 1

1 0 3 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1

1 2 4 2 N VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

2 0 0

0 0

5 0 0

0 0 12 0 0

0 0

2 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 21 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FOOT LEVEL RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL .100 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (MPH)

NNE NE ENE CALM 0 0

0 1-3 0 0

0 4-7 0 0

0 8-12 0 0

0 13-18 0 0

0 19-24 0 0

0 25-UP 0 0

0 UNKNO 0 0

0 TOTAL 0 0

0 E ESE SE SSE S SSW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

1 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 1

0 0 SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 1

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 1

0 1 N VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

1 0 0

0 0

1 0 0

0 0

1 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

3 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-89 Table 2.3-22a Annual Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Direction and Wind Speed Versus Precipitation In tensity (Continued)

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FOOT LEVEL RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL .250 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (MPH)

NNE NE ENE CALM 0 0

0 1-3 0 0

0 4-7 0 0

0 8-12 0 0

0 13-18 0 0

0 19-24 0 0

0 25-UP 0 0

0 UNKNO 0 0

0 TOTAL 0 0

0 E ESE SE SSE S SSW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 N VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FOOT LEVEL RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL .500 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (MPH)

NNE NE ENE CALM 0 0 0 1-3 0 0

0 4-7 0 0

0 8-12 0 0

0 13-18 0 0

0 19-24 0 0

0 25-UP 0 0

0 UNKNO 0 0

0 TOTAL 0 0

0 E ESE SE SSE S SSW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 N VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-90 Table 2.3-23 Statistic on Fog at the Hanford M e teo r ology S t ation (Based on 1945-1970 Data)*

All Fog (viz 0-6 Miles)

Den s e Fog (viz 1/4 Mile or Less)

No. of Days No. of Hours No. of Days No. of Hours Great e s t No. of Hours of

Persis t ence J

F M

A M

J J

A S

O N

D Avg 9 6

1

2 8 12 Great e s t 19 20 6 1

3 1

1 1

1 9 14 20 Le ast 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 2 Avg 68.3 36.4 4.4 0.3 0.3

0.3 7.6 55.4 105.4 Great e s t 193.4 206.2 20.6 2.8 2.7 0.5 0.7 1.0 5.5 63.6 148.0 193.8 Le ast 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1.0 6.5 Avg 6 3

1

0 0

1 5

8 Great e s t 14 11 5 1

1 0

0 1

1 6 13 17 Le ast 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 2 Avg 20.4 12.7 1.8 0.1 0.1 0

0

0.1 3.1 21.1 42.0 Great e s t 52.4 86.7 7.8 1.8 1.6 0

0 1.0 3.2 35.2 71.4 119.8 Le ast 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1.3 (9) AF 58.1 58.0 12.2 2.8 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.6 39.0 65.4 72.3 (10) DF 15.0 16.7 5.0 0

1.6 0

0 0.7 1.4 15.8 20.6 47.0 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Y 33 57 22 278.4 462.5 147.7 24 42 2 101.4 201.5 24.3 72.3 47.0 # Less than 1/2 1. Greatest number of days in a season -- occurred in 1969-70 2. Least number of days in a season -- occurred in 1948-49

3. Greatest number of hours in a season -- occurred in 1964-65

4. Least number of hours in a season -- occurred in 1948-49

5. Greatest number of days in a season -- occurred in 1950-51

6. Least number of days in a season -- occurred in 1948-49

7. Greatest number of hours in a season -- occurred in 1962-63

8. Least number of hours in a season -- occurred in 1948-49

9. AF denotes all fog (viz 0-6 miles)

10. DF denotes dense fog (viz 1/4 mile or less). Records for persistence of dense fog did not begin until 1953.

• Summation for the year does not necessarily reflect the summation of individual months.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDC N-0 2-0 0 0 2.3-91 Table 2.3-24 Percent Frequency Distri bution of Wind Speeds Duri ng Hourly Observations of Fog at Pasco (1966-19 7 0) and at HMS (1960-1970)

Speed Clas s* Station Calm 1-3 4-7 8-12 12 Total HM S (1) 29 44 25 2 0 100 Pasc o (2) 61 8 24 6 1 100

• Speed classes are in units of mph for HMS, and in units of knots for Pasco.

(1) Statistics for HMS are only for hour ly observations of fog restric ting visibility to 1/2 mile or less.

(2) Statistics for Pasco are for all hourly obs ervations of fog (visibility 0-6 miles).

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-92 Table 2.3-25 Percent Frequency of Occurrence of Stability (T Distribution) at the Hanford Reservation (1)

Month/Year/Site Very Unstable Less Than -2.5 Unstable -2.5 to -1.5 t Range (°F/200 ft)

Neutral -1.5 to -0.5 Moderately Stable

-0.5 to +3.5 Very Stable Greater Than 3.5 4/74 CGS 4/74 HMS APRIL 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.14 3.61 5.10 15.69 25.28 20.88 27.78 26.94 30.22 43.33 40.83 39.19 12.36 3.19 4.61 5/74 CGS 5/74 HMS MAY 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.27 6.18 8.33 23.39 33.20 22.56 30.51 26.34 30.18 35.89 32.39 34.71 8.06 1.88 4.22 6/74 CGS 6/74 HMS JUNE 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 1.25 7.36 8.60 35.42 33.33 26.25 17.36 24.72 30.75 30.42 31.39 31.45 5.42 3.19 2.95 7/74 CGS 7/74 HMS JULY 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.00 6.72 8.74 28.23 30.78 26.31 25.81 28.90 27.69 27.02 30.51 33.42 14.11 3.09 3.84 8/74 CGS 8/74 HMS AUGUST 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.00 8.20 7.33 28.09 32.12 23.73 20.83 18.28 26.55 23.79 33.74 37.65 25.54 7.66 4.74 9/74 CGS 9/74 HMS SEPTEMBER 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.00 6.94 5.05 21.67 25.69 19.90 20.83 17.64 25.11 21.25 33.06 40.89 35.14 16.67 9.05 10/74 CGS 10/74 HMS OCTOBER 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.00 3.36 2.23 14.38 20.16 11.82 18.15 17.74 27.03 25.81 41.26 48.87 38.98 17.47 10.06 11/74 CGS 11/74 HMS NOVEMBER 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.00 0.00 0.76 4.58 5.00 6.82 28.06 30.42 31.74 52.22 57.22 53.37 14.44 5.83 7.30 12/74 CGS 12/74 HMS DECEMBER 1955-1970 HMS (hist) 0.00 0.13 0.40 1.75 5.24 4.35 22.72 22.72 36.53 56.18 60.89 50.98 18.15 11.02 7.74 (1)t at CGS is computed from 33 to 245 foot levels; at HMS, t is computed from 50 to 250 foot level.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-93 Table 2.3-25 Percent F r equency of Occurrence of Stability (T Distribution) at the Hanford Reservation (1) (Continued)

M onth/Year/Site Very Unstable Less Than -2.5 Uns t ab l e -2.5 to -1.5 t Range (° F/200 ft) Neu t ral -1.5 to -0.5 Modera tely S t a b le -0.5 to +3.5 Very Sta b le Grea t er Than 3.5 1/75 CGS 1/74 H M S (19 7 5 Not Available)

JANUARY 1 9 5 5-19 7 0 H M S (hist) 0.00 0.13 0.34 2.55 5.65 4.73 30.51 29.30 34.78 53.90 59.54 52.23 10.62 5.11 7.91 2/75 CGS 2/74 H M S (19 7 5 Not Available)

F EBRUARY 1 9 55-1 9 70 H M S (hist) 0.00 0.30 1.51 8.78 14.43 9.29 30.51 26.93 28.24 49.40 51.19 52.05 10.57 7.14 8.90 3/75 CGS 3/74 H M S (19 7 5 Not Available)

M ARCH 1955-1970 H M S (hist) 0.13 1.48 3.49 20.03 19.09 15.84 17.34 26.34 28.22 42.07 47.04 45.25 11.96 6.05 6.61 April 1974 -

M a rch 1975 CGS

1955-19 7 0 H M S (hist) 0.14 4.32 17.17 16.04 24.25 29.80 38.21 41.84 17.17 6.49 April 1975 -

M a rch 1976 C G S 0.59 21.31 21.85 37.20 17.51 (1)t at CGS is computed from 33 to 245 foot levels; at HMS, t is computed from 50 to 250 foot level.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT N o v e mb e r 1998 2.3-94 Table 2.3-26 Frequency of Occurrence T ( F/200 ft) Versus Time of D a y from 4/74 through 3/

7 5 at CGS between 245 and 33 ft Levels

Time of Day 1 2 3 4 5 678 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 415 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 324TOTALLT-2.5 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 032212 11000 0 000 12 GE-2.5 LT-1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 43 98 137 156 175 213 217 196 148 90 2 710 0 00 0 1504 GE-1.5 LT-0.5 17 16 16 16 18 37 97 137 134 150 168 158 123 123 145 168 181 167 111 52 33 21 18 18 2124 GE-0.5 LT-3.5 216 202 193 197 187 188 177 131 76 40 20 16 14 14 14 42 85 156 203 236 235 242 238 225 3347 GE-3.5 124 141 148 143 150 133 84 36 9 511111 02 8 4 1 7 1 9 19510 211 6 1504UNKNO 8 6 8 9 10 7 4 1 8 4 8 3 3 1 7 1 31297 66796 6 776 269 TOTAL 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 8760 Average f o r Hour 3.008 3.261 2.714 .243 -1.104 -1.432 -1.502 -1.240 -.155 1.656 2.228 2.685 2.899 3.226 3.227 1.499

-.654 -1.303 -1.521 -1.441 -.835

.762 2.144 2.383 .883 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTNovember 1998 2.3-95 Table 2.3-27 Frequency of Occurrence, Sigma (°) Versus Time of Day from 4/74 through 3/75 at CGS for 33 ft Level Time of Day GE22.5 1 111 2 110 3 105 4 104 5 104 6 112 7 96 8 117 9 124 10 139 11 144 12 152 13 152 14 153 15 137 16 109 17 62 18 44 19 52 20 51 21 79 22 88 23 107 24 98 TOTAL 2550 LT22.5 GE17.5 30 33 32 38 33 32342932353944333646 393220212836262741790 LT17.5 GE12.5 43 48 54 52 52 47544846587055686050 5950363439435147411205 LT 12.5 GE7.5 104 91 87 74 94 9711211481797179838094 1071441511131121059698882354 LT7.5 GE3.75 60 61 64 75 62 56583131181917132327 396592121112908668771365 LT3.75 GE2.1 0 5 7 5 4 6100010000 1111138585687LT2.1 8 8 8 7 5 5020000000 00037524569 UNKNO 9 9 8 10 11 10102451362118161311 111111888899340TOTAL 365 365 365 365 365 365365365365365365365365365365 3653653653653653653653653658760 Average for Hour 22.406 23.575 22.42123.03127.39027.76828.29821.89514.19814.65618.66720.99723.638 22.506 22.794 21.73027.37828.12428.87427.136 17.01115.28517.97820.98522.384 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2007LDCN-05-009 2.3-96 Table 2.3-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction

PLANT NAME: COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA PERIOD: JFD 1996-1999 WIND SENSORS HEIGHT: 10.0 METER TYPE OF RELEASE: GROUND LEVEL RELEASE DELTA-T HEIGHTS: 10 - 75 METERS SOURCE OF DATA: CGS ONSITE MET DATA TAKEN FROM FRAMATOME JFD FILES FOR 96-99 PROGRAM: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 REVISION, IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.145, REVISION 1

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS A WIND SPEED (M/S)

TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .029 .101 .231 .190 .168 .114 .051 .079 .003 .000 .000 .000 .96 .035 .123 .190 .145 .117 .088 .028 .057 .003 .006 .000 .000 .79 .027 .095 .161 .130 .060 .035 .016 .032 .006 .000 .000 .000 .56 .021 .073 .114 .035 .022 .006 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .27 .024 .085 .095 .032 .016 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .26 .022 .079 .123 .095 .028 .013 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .36 .025 .088 .247 .158 .139 .070 .019 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .75 .014 .051 .180 .247 .262 .114 .047 .022 .006 .003 .000 .000 .95 .024 .085 .224 .209 .180 .196 .180 .196 .063 .022 .000 .000 1.38 .017 .060 .155 .107 .107 .117 .079 .092 .016 .006 .003 .000 .76 .013 .044 .098 .073 .076 .073 .035 .066 .035 .003 .000 .000 .52 .016 .057 .063 .054 .038 .025 .013 .041 .025 .009 .000 .000 .34 .013 .047 .095 .028 .035 .025 .016 .028 .022 .009 .000 .000 .32 .020 .070 .098 .054 .016 .019 .019 .035 .019 .022 .000 .000 .37 .022 .079 .155 .085 .060 .013 .016 .019 .013 .009 .000 .000 .47 .024 .085 .269 .171 .085 .098 .054 .035 .000 .003 .003 .000 .83 .348 1.223 2.497 1.811 1.410 1.018 .578 .705 .212 .095 .006 .000 9.90 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS B WIND SPEED (M/S)

TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .007 .022 .063 .085 .047 .035 .019 .013 .003 .000 .000 .000 .29 .008 .025 .041 .057 .057 .032 .006 .006 .000 .006 .000 .000 .24 .001 .003 .035 .047 .032 .025 .003 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .15 .005 .016 .013 .013 .006 .003 .003 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .07 .007 .022 .019 .009 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .06 .005 .016 .035 .016 .022 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .10 .006 .019 .038 .063 .038 .009 .006 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .19 .006 .019 .025 .076 .085 .051 .019 .013 .003 .000 .000 .000 .30 .005 .016 .070 .095 .076 .092 .047 .066 .009 .000 .000 .000 .48 .005 .016 .057 .025 .047 .047 .041 .060 .025 .013 .000 .000 .34 .003 .009 .051 .032 .022 .032 .016 .051 .025 .025 .000 .000 .27 .003 .009 .028 .016 .019 .013 .000 .006 .013 .000 .000 .000 .11 .004 .013 .028 .016 .019 .019 .028 .032 .003 .013 .000 .000 .17 .003 .009 .025 .022 .022 .019 .022 .016 .006 .013 .000 .000 .16 .008 .025 .038 .028 .038 .016 .013 .006 .003 .000 .000 .000 .18 .012 .038 .063 .070 .032 .025 .009 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000 .26 .092 .278 .629 .670 .569 .424 .234 .307 .092 .070 .000 .000 3.36 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2007LDCN-05-009 2.3-97 Table 2.3-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction (Continued)

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS C TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .007 .019 .076 .079 .054 .051 .022 .022 .000 .000 .000 .000 .33 .011 .032 .060 .057 .047 .035 .009 .006 .006 .000 .000 .000 .26 .009 .025 .035 .035 .009 .016 .009 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .14 .005 .016 .013 .028 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .07 .003 .009 .019 .022 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .06 .004 .013 .009 .003 .013 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .05 .005 .016 .025 .063 .035 .022 .003 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .19 .002 .006 .047 .098 .076 .057 .035 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .34 .007 .019 .044 .082 .092 .063 .063 .047 .019 .006 .000 .000 .44 .008 .022 .057 .044 .044 .047 .057 .063 .032 .019 .000 .000 .39 .008 .022 .028 .028 .044 .047 .022 .054 .041 .009 .000 .000 .30 .003 .009 .044 .019 .022 .035 .016 .028 .044 .003 .000 .000 .22 .003 .009 .022 .028 .025 .022 .022 .032 .013 .003 .000 .000 .18 .003 .009 .028 .038 .009 .022 .022 .016 .028 .025 .000 .000 .20 .003 .009 .051 .054 .022 .022 .013 .009 .022 .000 .000 .000 .21 .007 .019 .054 .079 .051 .035 .022 .028 .003 .003 .000 .000 .30 .088 .256 .613 .759 .553 .480 .316 .345 .209 .070 .000 .000 3.69 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS D WIND SPEED (M/S) TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .035 .142 .332 .420 .218 .193 .130 .032 .003 .003 .000 .000 1.51 .025 .101 .215 .231 .186 .101 .047 .038 .025 .003 .000 .000 .97 .020 .082 .168 .171 .126 .107 .051 .013 .019 .013 .006 .000 .78 .018 .073 .104 .079 .060 .019 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .36 .012 .051 .117 .073 .057 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .33 .010 .041 .101 .092 .082 .022 .016 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .37 .021 .085 .205 .193 .218 .133 .051 .013 .003 .000 .000 .000 .92 .018 .073 .322 .401 .395 .303 .136 .120 .009 .000 .000 .000 1.78 .025 .101 .322 .338 .398 .326 .228 .335 .123 .041 .006 .000 2.24 .015 .060 .243 .212 .205 .281 .240 .370 .215 .120 .022 .000 1.98 .031 .126 .136 .168 .161 .142 .107 .202 .142 .101 .016 .000 1.33 .019 .079 .123 .149 .079 .054 .082 .155 .133 .035 .000 .000 .91 .027 .111 .158 .092 .101 .126 .092 .107 .057 .016 .006 .000 .89 .030 .123 .158 .202 .202 .149 .171 .326 .161 .057 .006 .000 1.59 .028 .114 .471 .468 .414 .310 .231 .161 .088 .051 .006 .000 2.34 .031 .126 .405 .455 .408 .265 .149 .155 .047 .009 .009 .000 2.06 .363 1.489 3.581 3.742 3.312 2.547 1.729 2.035 1.027 .449 .079 .000 20.35 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2007LDCN-05-009 2.3-98 Table 2.3-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction (Continued)

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS E WIND SPEED (M/S) TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .037 .142 .370 .307 .161 .079 .035 .025 .009 .003 .000 .000 1.17 .029 .111 .291 .250 .104 .032 .013 .041 .041 .000 .000 .000 .91 .019 .073 .199 .171 .145 .047 .009 .019 .022 .003 .000 .000 .71 .021 .082 .095 .085 .025 .028 .016 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .36 .018 .070 .070 .060 .016 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .24 .013 .051 .098 .063 .079 .038 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .35 .025 .095 .247 .288 .348 .247 .101 .070 .003 .000 .000 .000 1.42 .029 .111 .411 .544 .670 .525 .288 .224 .009 .000 .000 .000 2.81 .051 .196 .490 .484 .484 .553 .430 .424 .076 .025 .006 .000 3.22 .043 .168 .392 .288 .196 .250 .316 .518 .348 .133 .025 .000 2.68 .045 .174 .281 .228 .199 .164 .199 .224 .196 .082 .016 .000 1.81 .043 .164 .307 .218 .142 .107 .104 .120 .038 .019 .000 .000 1.26 .051 .196 .310 .256 .272 .136 .136 .130 .038 .019 .000 .000 1.54 .074 .284 .446 .480 .455 .509 .442 .477 .202 .063 .006 .000 3.44 .066 .253 .651 .762 .610 .487 .389 .354 .098 .032 .000 .000 3.70 .045 .174 .676 .540 .414 .234 .107 .180 .066 .013 .000 .000 2.45 .607 2.342 5.332 5.022 4.320 3.436 2.592 2.813 1.147 .392 .054 .000 28.06 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS F WIND SPEED (M/S)

TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .075 .272 .531 .307 .041 .006 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.24 .055 .199 .446 .205 .025 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .93 .037 .136 .221 .126 .070 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .60 .016 .057 .095 .051 .032 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .26 .016 .057 .044 .025 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .15 .014 .051 .076 .032 .013 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .19 .020 .073 .209 .174 .269 .111 .028 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000 .90 .035 .126 .512 .604 .582 .414 .092 .066 .006 .000 .000 .000 2.44 .055 .202 .629 .733 .578 .297 .130 .104 .009 .006 .000 .000 2.75 .041 .149 .455 .389 .288 .120 .107 .085 .047 .009 .000 .000 1.69 .049 .177 .303 .205 .117 .051 .032 .032 .003 .006 .000 .000 .97 .057 .209 .265 .183 .088 .051 .016 .016 .000 .003 .000 .000 .89 .065 .237 .322 .164 .142 .101 .051 .006 .003 .000 .000 .000 1.09 .070 .256 .442 .319 .326 .171 .088 .044 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.72 .083 .303 .733 .512 .442 .161 .063 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 2.31 .072 .262 .670 .528 .177 .073 .013 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.81 .759 2.765 5.954 4.558 3.195 1.583 .629 .386 .070 .025 .000 .000 19.92 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORTDecember 2007LDCN-05-009 2.3-99 Table 2.3-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction (Continued)

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS G WIND SPEED (M/S) TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL

.42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 TOTAL .42 1.01 2.03 3.02 4.00 5.03 6.01 8.02 10.04 13.03 18.04 44.70 .113 .332 .860 .281 .025 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.61 .111 .326 .787 .237 .025 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.49 .068 .199 .335 .180 .060 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .85 .030 .088 .092 .044 .019 .006 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .28 .020 .060 .019 .003 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .11 .022 .063 .019 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .10 .027 .079 .139 .114 .028 .009 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .40 .054 .158 .357 .493 .307 .136 .032 .006 .003 .000 .000 .000 1.55 .059 .174 .408 .496 .313 .085 .028 .009 .006 .000 .000 .000 1.58 .047 .139 .335 .155 .111 .025 .019 .003 .000 .003 .000 .000 .84 .067 .196 .237 .082 .047 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .63 .061 .180 .120 .051 .019 .013 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .45 .067 .196 .171 .047 .041 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .54 .071 .209 .307 .139 .044 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .79 .094 .275 .667 .395 .221 .019 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.68 .134 .392 .796 .405 .101 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.83 1.046 3.066 5.648 3.123 1.365 .338 .092 .019 .009 .003 .003 .000 14.71 WIND MEASURED AT 10.0 METERS WIND SPEED CORRECTED TO THE RELEASE HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS.

OVERALL WIND DIRECTION FREQUENCY WIND DIRECTION: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW FREQUENCY: 7.1 5.6 3.8 1.7 1.2 1.5 4.8 10.2 12.1 8.7 5.8 4.2 4.7 8.3 10.9 9.5 OVERALL WIND SPEED FREQUENCY AS MEASURED ON THE TOWER:

MAX. WIND SPEED (M/S): .425 1.006 2.034 3.018 4.001 5.029 6.013 8.024 10.036 13.031 18.038 44.704 WIND SPEED FREQUENCY: 3.30 11.42 24.25 19.68 14.73 9.83 6.17 6.61 2.77 1.10 .14 .00 BUILDING AND RELEASE CHARACTERISTICS:

RELEASE HEIGHT: 10.00 METERS MIXING VOLUME COEFFICIENT: 0.50 BUILDING CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA: 2861.00 SQUARE METERS THE FIVE-PERCENT-FOR-THE-ENTIRE-SITE /Q IS LIMITING.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-07-044 2.3-100Table 2.3-28A Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction

PLANT NAME: COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA PERIOD: 1984-1989, AVERAGE HOURLY DATA WIND SENSORS HEIGHT: 10.0 METER TYPE OF RELEASE: GROUND LVL RLS DELTA-T HEIGHTS: 245FT, 33FT SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL MET DATA COLLECTION 1984-1989 COMMENTS: DATA PROCESSED UNDER-THE SUPPLY SYSTEM QA PROGRAM: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 REVISION, IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.145

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS A WIND SPEED (M/S)

TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.002 0.188 0.460 0.095 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.77 0.002 0.102 0.319 0.079 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.56 0.002 0.072 0.140 0.052 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.28 0.000 0.016 0.025 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 0.002 0.038 0.057 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 0.000 0.063 0.125 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.19 0.000 0.084 0.226 0.041 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.36 0.005 0.138 0.573 0.168 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.92 0.005 0.131 0.613 0.389 0.186 0.000 0.000 1.32 0.000 0.115 0.312 0.231 0.294 0.009 0.002 0.96 0.005 0.100 0.235 0.138 0.213 0.032 0.000 0.72 0.002 0.127 0.211 0.109 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.57 0.000 0.118 0.136 0.054 0.054 0.007 0.000 0.37 0.002 0.129 0.181 0.081 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.50 0.005 0.197 0.299 0.111 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.69 0.005 0.231 0.410 0.086 0.016 0.002 0.000 0.75 0.036 1.850 4.322 1.646 1.211 0.050 0.002 9.12 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS B WIND SPEED (M/S)

TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.000 0.038 0.111 0.018 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.18 0.000 0.045 0.061 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 0.000 0.014 0.029 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.05 0.000 0.007 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 0.002 0.020 0.041 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 0.000 0.027 0.111 0.014 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.15 0.000 0.061 0.172 0.043 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.28 0.000 0.041 0.190 0.070 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.35 0.002 0.050 0.111 0.104 0.072 0.002 0.000 0.34 0.000 0.018 0.063 0.041 0.04 3 0.000 0.000 0.17 0.002 0.036 0.066 0.045 0.063 0.009 0.000 0.22 0.000 0.054 0.057 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.15 0.000 0.038 0.059 0.048 0.072 0.005 0.000 0.22 0.002 0.059 0.095 0.016 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.19 0.000 0.043 0.136 0.038 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.23 0.009 0.559 1.318 0.482 0.374 0.016 0.000 2.76 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-07-044 2.3-101Table 2.3-28A Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction (Continued)

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS C TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.000 0.095 0.177 0.061 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.36 0.000 0.059 0.097 0.027 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.19 0.002 0.020 0.070 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.11 0.000 0.029 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 0.000 0.020 0.034 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.005 0.06 0.000 0.027 0.059 0.009 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.10 0.000 0.043 0.143 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.21 0.000 0.102 0.238 0.079 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.44 0.000 0.070 0.188 0.154 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.50 0.002 0.059 0.161 0.106 0.052 0.005 0.000 0.38 0.000 0.079 0.115 0.100 0.054 0.002 0.000 0.35 0.002 0.066 0.136 0.095 0.068 0.007 0.000 0.37 0.000 0.075 0.102 0.075 0.045 0.000 0.002 0.30 0.005 0.100 0.120 0.041 0.091 0.005 0.000 0.36 0.000 0.088 0.170 0.045 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.37 0.000 0.109 0.179 0.029 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.34 0.011 1.041 2.019 0.860 0.548 0.018 0.007 4.50 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS D WIND SPEED (M/S) TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.014 0.469 0.623 0.211 0.109 0.000 0.000 1.42 0.011 0.267 0.387 0.081 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.80 0.005 0.147 0.238 0.038 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.46 0.002 0.081 0.095 0.002 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.19 0.000 0.093 0.140 0.016 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.26 0.002 0.204 0.231 0.048 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.49 0.005 0.213 0.441 0.07 2 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.76 0.005 0.287 0.847 0.244 0.068 0.000 0.000 1.45 0.002 0.337 0.885 0.414 0.220 0.002 0.000 1.86 0.011 0.283 0.627 0.475 0.387 0.032 0.000 1.82 0.002 0.263 0.414 0.290 0.283 0.011 0.005 1.27 0.016 0.333 0.340 0.201 0.226 0.005 0.002 1.12 0.005 0.355 0.407 0.231 0.177 0.005 0.002 1.18 0.016 0.448 0.586 0.349 0.387 0.032 0.007 1.82 0.011 0.559 0.894 0.240 0.213 0.020 0.005 1.94 0.014 0.534 0.996 0.263 0.170 0.009 0.000 1.99 0.120 4.874 8.152 3.176 2.381 0.115 0.020 18.84 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-07-044 2.3-102Table 2.3-28A Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction (Continued)

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS E WIND SPEED (M/S) TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.016 0.808 0.754 0.125 0.043 0.000 0.000 1.75 0.009 0.521 0.552 0.070 0.050 0.000 0.000 1.20 0.014 0.328 0.494 0.027 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.87 0.014 0.134 0.158 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.34 0.000 0.154 0.168 0.011 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.34 0.020 0.285 0.412 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.74 0.011 0.421 0.840 0.127 0.054 0.000 0.000 1.45 0.020 0.521 1.720 0.392 0.170 0.000 0.000 2.82 0.011 0.738 1.684 0.632 0.396 0.009 0.000 3.47 0.020 0.700 1.252 0.580 0.552 0.059 0.002 3.16 0.036 0.616 0.912 0.369 0.292 0.016 0.000 2.24 0.009 0.718 0.810 0.274 0.177 0.002 0.011 2.00 0.014 0.786 0.998 0.441 0.235 0.011 0.000 2.49 0.054 1.035 1.648 0.706 0.480 0.016 0.000 3.94 0.034 1.184 1.813 0.496 0.303 0.007 0.000 3.84 0.043 1.050 1.410 0.310 0.152 0.000 0.000 2.97 0.326 9.997 15.627 4.611 2.911 0.120 0.014 33.61 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS F WIND SPEED (M/S)

TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.016 0.752 0.441 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.21 0.011 0.552 0.274 0.00 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.84 0.005 0.278 0.285 0.009 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.58 0.014 0.131 0.104 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.26 0.005 0.100 0.070 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.18 0.009 0.190 0.152 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.36 0.007 0.333 0.573 0.066 0.036 0.000 0.000 1.01 0.009 0.550 1.288 0.240 0.079 0.005 0.000 2.17 0.018 0.629 1.320 0.242 0.079 0.000 0.000 2.29 0.011 0.557 0.643 0.179 0.052 0.005 0.005 1.45 0.027 0.537 0.430 0.070 0.020 0.002 0.000 1.09 0.020 0.494 0.432 0.034 0.023 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.029 0.552 0.405 0.088 0.018 0.000 0.000 1.09 0.034 0.772 0.815 0.195 0.050 0.000 0.000 1.87 0.014 1.050 1.148 0.113 0.045 0.000 0.018 2.39 0.023 1.021 0.747 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.014 1.83 0.251 8.498 9.128 1.284 0.405 0.011 0.036 19.61 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-07-044 2.3-103Table 2.3-28A Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction (Continued)

JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS G WIND SPEED (M/S) TOWER RELEASE N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 TOTAL 0.27 1.34 3.13 5.36 8.05 10.73 11.18 0.016 0.790 0.312 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.032 1.16 0.005 0.686 0.292 0.002 0.009 0.000 0.032 1.03 0.007 0.303 0.240 0.029 0.005 0.000 0.032 0.62 0.005 0.174 0.084 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.29 0.005 0.091 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 0.011 0.111 0.059 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.19 0.014 0.213 0.272 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.51 0.007 0.385 0.869 0.075 0.014 0.000 0.000 1.35 0.009 0.392 0.645 0.050 0.011 0.011 0.000 1.12 0.014 0.310 0.310 0.014 0.007 0.005 0.000 0.66 0.016 0.267 0.174 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.47 0.014 0.287 0.104 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.41 0.007 0.299 0.115 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.43 0.009 0.473 0.267 0.020 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.77 0.020 0.654 0.453 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.15 0.027 0.822 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 1.31 0.183 6.257 4.670 0.258 0.054 0.016 0.125 11.56 WIND MEASURED AT 10.0 METERS WIND SPEED CORRECTED TO THE RELEASE HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS. OVERALL WIND DIRECTION FREQUENCY WIND DIRECTION: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW FREQUENCY: 6.9 4.7 3.0 1.2 1.1 2.1 4.5 9.4 10.9 8.8 6.3 5.7 6.0 9.5 10.6 9.4 OVERALL WIND SPEED FREQUENCY AS MEASURED ON THE TOWER:

MAX. WIND SPEED (M/S): 0.268 1.341 3.129 5.364 8.047 10.729 11.176 WIND SPEED FREQUENCY: 0.94 33.08 45.23 12.32 7.88 0.35 0.20 BUILDING AND RELEASE CHARACTERISTICS:

RELEASE HEIGHT: 10.00 METERS MIXING VOLUME COEFFICIENT: 0.50 BUILDING CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA: 2766.00 SQUARE METERS THE FIVE-PERCENT-FOR-THE-ENTIRE-SITE /Q IS LIMITING.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-104

TABLE 2.3-29 THROUGH TABLE 2.3-32 DELETED C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-105 Table 2.3-33 Exclusion Area Boundary Accident /Q Desert Sigmas PLANT NAME: CGS METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA PERIOD: JFD 1996-1999 WIND SENSORS HEIGHT: 10.0 METERS TYPE OF RELEASE: GROUND LEVEL RELEASE DELTA-T HEIGHTS: 10 - 75 METERS SOURCE OF DATA: CGS ONSITE MET DATA TAKEN FROM FRAMATOME JFD FILES FOR 96-99 COMMENTS: input file: P96-99-F.inp output file: P96-99-F.out PROGRAM: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 REVISION, IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.145, REVISION 1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (/Q) VALUES (SEC/CUBIC METER)

VERSUS HOURS PER YEAR MAX AVERAGING TIME 0-2 HR /Q IS DOWNWIND SECTOR DISTANCE (METERS) 0-2 HOURS

0-8 HOURS 8-24 HOURS 1-4 DAYS 4-30 DAYS ANNUAL AVERAGE EXCEEDED IN SECTOR DOWWIND SECTOR S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1950. 1.68E-04 1.61E-04 1.13E-04 5.62E-05 2.88E-05 3.14E-05 7.22E-05 1.19E-04 1.30E-04 1.09E-04 1.20E-04 1.14E-04 1.25E-04 1.39E-04 1.59E-04 1.81E-04 1.08E-04 1.02E-04 7.01E-05 3.38E-05 1.80E-05 1.94E-05 4.41E-05 7.70E-05 8.49E-05 6.85E-05 7.40E-05 6.94E-05 7.65E-05 8.76E-05 1.04E-04 1.18E-04 8.69E-05 8.16E-05 5.51E-05 2.63E-05 1.42E-05 1.53E-05 3.45E-05 6.20E-05 6.86E-05 5.45E-05 5.81E-05 5.41E-05 6.00E-05 6.94E-05 8.44E-05 9.52E-05 5.39E-05 5.00E-05 3.27E-05 1.51E-05 8.52E-06 9.06E-06 2.02E-05 3.87E-05 4.32E-05 3.31E-05 3.44E-05 3.16E-05 3.53E-05 4.20E-05 5.34E-05 5.98E-05 2.71E-05 2.48E-05 1.55E-05 6.88E-06 4.09E-06 4.29E-06 9.39E-06 1.97E-05 2.23E-05 1.62E-05 1.62E-05 1.46E-05 1.65E-05 2.04E-05 2.77E-05 3.07E-05 1.17E-05 1.05E-05 6.20E-06 2.62E-06 1.67E-06 1.72E-06 3.67E-06 8.64E-06 9.87E-06 6.73E-06 6.46E-06 5.66E-06 6.50E-06 8.41E-06 1.24E-05 1.36E-05 38.6 389.5 22.0 10.4 7.6 7.5 10.0 20.3 23.5 17.9 23.8 22.7 25.1 27.9 34.5 43.7 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE MAX /Q 1.81E-04 TOTAL HOURS AROUND SITE: 724.9 SRP 2.3.4 1950. 1.69E-04 1.12E-04 9.06E-05 5.76E-05 3.01E-05 1.36E-05 SITE LIMIT 1.69E-04 1.12E-04 9.06E-055.76E-05 3.01E-05 1.36E-05 THE FIVE-PERCENT-FOR-THE-ENTIRE-SITE /Q IS LIMITING.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-106 Table 2.3-33a Exclusion Area Boundary /Q Values Desert Sigmas w/ Meander

Direction From Site 0.5% Level(a) (10-4 sec/m 3) 5% Level (b) (10-4 sec/m 3) S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 1.68 1.61 1.13 0.562 0.288 0.314 0.722 1.19 1.30 1.09 1.20 1.14 1.25 1.39 1.59 1.81 2.04 2.26 2.13 2.20 2.19 1.93 1.17 1.18 1.17 1.18 1.74 2.03 2.00 1.58 1.52 1.86 (a) Exceeded 0.5% of the total time.

(b) Exceeded 5% of the time that wind blows into the individual sector.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-107 Table 2.3-34 Exclusion Area Boundary Accident /Q P-G Sigmas PLANT NAME: CGS METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA PERIOD: JFD 1996-1999 WIND SENSORS HEIGHT: 10.0 METERS TYPE OF RELEASE: GROUND LEVEL RELEASE DELTA-T HEIGHTS: 10 - 75 METERS SOURCE OF DATA: CGS ONSITE MET DATA TAKEN FROM FRAMATOME JFD FILES FOR 96-99 COMMENTS: input file: P96-99-F.inp output file: P96-99-F.out PROGRAM: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 REVISION, IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.145, REVISION 1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (/Q) VALUES (SEC/CUBIC METER)

VERSUS HOURS PER YEAR MAX AVERAGING TIME 0-2 HR /Q IS DOWNWIND SECTOR DISTANCE (METERS) 0-2 HOURS 0-8 HOURS 8-24 HOURS

1-4 DAYS 4-30 DAYS ANNUAL AVERAGE EXCEEDED IN SECTOR DOWWIND SECTOR S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950.1950. 1.67E-041.59E-041.15E-045.48E-052.52E-052.85E-057.40E-051.30E-041.38E-041.08E-041.09E-041.01E-041.10E-041.24E-041.59E-041.77E-04 8.92E-058.36E-055.89E-052.81E-051.39E-051.54E-053.92E-057.05E-057.60E-055.86E-055.81E-055.32E-055.87E-056.83E-058.86E-059.68E-05 6.53E-056.06E-054.21E-052.01E-051.03E-051.13E-052.85E-055.20E-055.65E-054.31E-054.24E-053.87E-054.29E-055.07E-056.61E-057.16E-05 3.32E-053.01E-052.04E-059.75E-065.39E-065.80E-061.43E-052.68E-052.97E-052.22E-052.15E-051.94E-052.17E-052.65E-053.51E-053.72E-05 1.25E-051.10E-057.20E-063.45E-062.12E-062.22E-065.29E-061.04E-051.18E-058.56E-068.07E-067.19E-068.18E-061.05E-051.41E-051.45E-05 3.82E-063.23E-062.01E-069.65E-076.80E-076.87E-071.57E-063.24E-063.81E-062.67E-062.44E-062.14E-062.47E-063.37E-064.63E-064.59E-06 38.9 385.6 21.0 8.6 6.1 6.3 9.2 22.8 25.5 17.2 19.9 18.9 20.7 23.2 35.243.7 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE MAX /Q 1.77E-04 TOTAL HOURS AROUND SITE: 702.8 SRP 2.3.4 1950. 2.86E-04 1.45E-04 1.03E-04 4.91E-05 1.70E-05 4.63E-06 SITE LIMIT 1.65E-04 9.16E-05 6.82E-05 3.59E-05 1.43E-05 4.63E-06 THE FIVE-PERCENT-FOR-THE-ENTIRE-SITE /Q IS LIMITING.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-108 Table 2.3-34a Exclusion Area Boundary /Q Values Pasquill-Gifford Sigmar w/ M eander and Building Wake Credit Direction From Site 0.5% Level(a) (10-4 sec/m 3) 5% Level (b) (10-4 sec/m 3) S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 1.67 1.59 1.15 0.548 0.252 0.285 0.740 1.30 1.38 1.08 1.09 1.01 1.10 1.24 1.59 1.77 1.99 2.18 2.02 1.96 1.93 1.71 1.14 1.29 1.25 1.17 1.53 1.80 1.77 1.38 1.52 1.82 (a) Exceeded 0.5% of the total time.

(b) Exceeded 5% of the time that wind blows into the individual sector.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-109 Table 2.3-35 Low Population Zone Accident /Q Desert Sigmas PLANT NAME: CGS METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA PERIOD: JFD 1996-1999 WIND SENSORS HEIGHT: 10.0 METERS TYPE OF RELEASE: GROUND LEVEL RELEASE DELTA-T HEIGHTS: 10 - 75 METERS SOURCE OF DATA: CGS ONSITE MET DATA TAKEN FROM FRAMATOME JFD FILES FOR 96-99 COMMENTS: input file: P96-99-F.inp output file: P96-99-F.out PROGRAM: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 REVISION, IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.145, REVISION 1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (/Q) VALUES (SEC/CUBIC METER)

VERSUS HOURS PER YEAR MAX AVERAGING TIME 0-2 HR /Q IS DOWNWIND SECTOR DISTANCE (METERS) 0-2 HOURS 0-8 HOURS 8-24 HOURS 1-4 DAYS 4-30 DAYS ANNUAL AVERAGE EXCEEDED IN SECTOR DOWNWIND SECTOR S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 8.35E-05 7.96E-05 5.52E-05 2.18E-05 7.98E-06 8.94E-06 2.94E-05 5.22E-05 5.78E-05 5.01E-05 5.49E-05 5.04E-05 5.66E-05 6.26E-05 7.62E-05 8.91E-05 4.58E-05 4.33E-05 2.92E-05 1.16E-05 4.64E-06 5.13E-06 1.57E-05 2.93E-05 3.26E-05 2.71E-05 2.92E-05 2.66E-05 2.99E-05 3.39E-05 4.27E-05 4.95E-05 3.39E-05 3.19E-05 2.12E-05 8.48E-06 3.54E-06 3.89E-06 1.15E-05 2.20E-05 2.45E-05 1.99E-05 2.12E-05 1.93E-05 2.17E-05 2.50E-05 3.20E-05 3.69E-05 1.76E-05 1.64E-05 1.06E-05 4.28E-06 1.97E-06 2.13E-06 5.81E-06 1.17E-05 1.31E-05 1.03E-05 1.07E-05 9.60E-06 1.09E-05 1.28E-05 1.70E-05 1.95E-05 6.92E-06 6.36E-06 3.94E-06 1.61E-06 8.46E-07 8.96E-07 2.19E-06 4.78E-06 5.38E-06 3.95E-06 3.98E-06 3.53E-06 4.02E-06 4.94E-06 6.91E-06 7.81E-06 2.20E-06 1.99E-06 1.17E-06 4.85E-07 3.02E-07 3.11E-07 6.61E-07 1.59E-06 1.80E-06 1.23E-06 1.19E-06 1.04E-06 1.19E-06 1.54E-06 2.29E-06 2.55E-06 39.1 364.8 22.2 9.8 7.0 7.2 9.1 18.0 21.1 16.7 22.7 21.6 23.7 25.3 33.4 43.7 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE MAX /Q 8.91E-05 TOTAL HOURS AROUND SITE: 685.7 SRP 2.3.4 4827. 7.96E-05 4.51E-05 3.39E-05 1.83E-05 7.54E-06 2.55E-06 SITE LIMIT 7.96E-05 4.51E-05 3.39E-05 1.83E-05 7.54E-06 2.55E-06 THE FIVE-PERCENT-FOR-THE-ENTIRE-SITE /Q IS LIMITING.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-110 Table 2.3-36 Low Population Zone Accident /Q P-G Sigmas PLANT NAME: CGS METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION DATA PERIOD: JFD 1996-1999 WIND SENSORS HEIGHT: 10.0 METERS TYPE OF RELEASE: GROUND LEVEL RELEASE DELTA-T HEIGHTS: 10 - 75 METERS SOURCE OF DATA: CGS ONSITE MET DATA TAKEN FROM FRAMATOME JFD FILES FOR 96-99 COMMENTS: input file: P96-99-F.inp output file: P96-99-F.out PROGRAM: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 REVISION, IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.145, REVISION 1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (/Q) VALUES (SEC/CUBIC METER)

VERSUS HOURS PER YEAR MAX AVERAGING TIME 0-2 HR /Q IS DOWNWIND SECTOR DISTANCE (METERS) 0-2 HOURS 0-8 HOURS 8-24 HOURS 1-4 DAYS 4-30 DAYS ANNUAL AVERAGE EXCEEDED IN SECTOR DOWNWIND SECTOR S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 4827. 7.65E-05 7.30E-05 5.16E-05 2.17E-05 8.35E-06 9.39E-06 3.16E-05 5.63E-05 6.01E-05 4.77E-05 4.98E-05 4.56E-05 5.08E-05 5.64E-05 7.21E-05 8.17E-05 3.43E-05 3.21E-05 2.22E-05 9.52E-06 4.05E-06 4.48E-06 1.42E-05 2.59E-05 2.81E-05 2.18E-05 2.23E-05 2.03E-05 2.28E-05 2.61E-05 3.38E-05 3.74E-05 2.30E-05 2.13E-05 1.46E-05 6.31E-06 2.83E-06 3.10E-06 9.49E-06 1.76E-05 1.92E-05 1.48E-05 1.49E-05 1.35E-05 1.52E-05 1.78E-05 2.31E-05 2.53E-05 9.64E-06 8.74E-06 5.85E-06 2.59E-06 1.29E-06 1.39E-06 3.97E-06 7.56E-06 8.42E-06 6.32E-06 6.22E-06 5.62E-06 6.37E-06 7.71E-06 1.02E-05 1.08E-05 2.77E-06 2.43E-06 1.57E-06 7.19E-07 4.19E-07 4.38E-07 1.14E-06 2.25E-06 2.58E-06 1.87E-06 1.78E-06 1.59E-06 1.82E-06 2.32E-06 3.12E-06 3.21E-06 6.01E-07 5.08E-07 3.16E-07 1.50E-07 1.06E-07 1.07E-07 2.46E-07 5.13E-07 6.05E-07 4.21E-07 3.84E-07 3.40E-07 3.94E-07 5.36E-07 7.35E-07 7.24E-07 38.9 379.7 20.9 9.2 6.5 6.7 9.1 21.4 24.0 16.8 21.1 20.1 22.1 23.6 34.6 43.7 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE MAX /Q 8.17E-05 TOTAL HOURS AROUND SITE: 698.5 SRP 2.3.4 4827. 1.15E-04 4.99E-05 3.28E-05 1.33E-05 3.61E-06 7.35E-07 SITE LIMIT 7.53E-05 3.50E-05 2.39E-05 1.04E-05 3.16E-06 7.35E-07 THE FIVE-PERCENT-FOR-THE-ENTIRE-SITE /Q IS LIMITING.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-05-009 2.3-111 Table 2.3-37 Control Room, Exclusion Area Boundary and Low Population Zone /Qs (S/m 3) Control Room (1) LPZ (2) EAB (2) Filtered Unfiltered SGT Roofline Railway Bay doors SC Leakage RBW SC Leakage Turbine Building SGT Roofline Railway Bay doors SC Leakage RBW SC Leakage Turbine Building 0 - 2 hrs 1.43E-04 3.65E-04 1.99E-04 8.81E-04 6.95E-04 5.34E-04 8.69E-04 4.70E-03 4.95E-05 1.81E-04 2 - 8 hrs 1.05E-04 2.89E-04 1.44E-04 3.75E-04 3.36E-04 1.97E-04 4.40E-04 2.00E-03 4.95E-05 8 - 24 hrs 4.14E-05 1.18E-04 5.73E-05 1.93E-04 1.28E-04 8.41E-05 1.75E-04 1.03E-03 3.69E-05 1 - 4 days 3.52E-05 9.83 E-05 5.00E-05 1.50E-04 9.72E-05 7.26E-05 1.38E-04 8.01E-04 1.95E-05 4 - 30 days 3.03E-05 8.61E-05 4.18E-05 1.44E-04 7.69E-05 7.00E-05 1.10E-04 7.69E-04 7.81E-06 (1) Reference 2.3-37 (2) Reference 2.3-38 NOTE: EAB = Exclusion Area Boundary LPZ = Low Population Zone SGT = Standby Gas Treatment SC = Secondary Containment RBW = Reactor Building Wall

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-112 Table 2.3-38a CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas CGS TURBINE AND RADWASTE BLDGS NO DECAY, UNDEPLETED CORRECTED USING STANDARD OPEN TERRAIN FACTORS ANNUAL AVERAGE CHI/Q (SEC/METER CUBED) DISTANCE IN MILES FROM THE SITE SECTOR 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 1.170E-04 8.738E-05 5.041E-05 2.672E-05 1.743E-05 3.424E-05 5.972E-05 1.094E-04 1.148E-04 9.052E-05 7.851E-05 7.545E-05 8.001E-05 1.238E-04 1.508E-04 1.535E-04 4.880E-05 3.691E-05 2.119E-05 1.129E-05 7.139E-06 1.390E-05 2.452E-05 4.499E-05 4.680E-05 3.669E-05 3.196E-05 3.053E-05 3.243E-05 5.040E-05 6.203E-05 6.378E-05 2.943E-05 2.243E-05 1.282E-05 6.851E-06 4.257E-06 8.233E-06 1.463E-05 2.691E-05 2.783E-05 2.171E-05 1.896E-05 1.805E-05 1.917E-05 2.986E-05 3.703E-05 3.835E-05 1.612E-05 1.234E-05 7.028E-06 3.769E-06 2.314E-06 4.450E-06 7.962E-06 1.468E-05 1.514E-05 1.174E-05 1.029E-05 9.773E-06 1.038E-05 1.617E-05 2.016E-05 2.097E-05 7.145E-06 5.502E-06 3.117E-06 1.679E-06 1.015E-06 1.936E-06 3.496E-06 6.471E-06 6.639E-06 5.115E-06 4.493E-06 4.260E-06 4.517E-06 7.040E-06 8.853E-06 9.262E-06 4.144E-06 3.204E-06 1.808E-06 9.761E-07 5.849E-07 1.109E-06 2.014E-06 3.738E-06 3.821E-06 2.930E-06 2.578E-06 2.442E-06 2.585E-06 4.029E-06 5.097E-06 5.358E-06 2.767E-06 2.146E-06 1.207E-06 6.527E-07 3.886E-07 7.331E-07 1.337E-06 2.487E-06 2.536E-06 1.937E-06 1.706E-06 1.615E-06 1.708E-06 2.662E-06 3.383E-06 3.569E-06 2.013E-06 1.565E-06 8.781E-07 4.753E-07 2.817E-07 5.293E-07 9.689E-07 1.805E-06 1.836E-06 1.399E-06 1.233E-06 1.167E-06 1.232E-06 1.920E-06 2.449E-06 2.593E-06 1.551E-06 1.208E-06 6.766E-07 3.666E-07 2.164E-07 4.053E-07 7.440E-07 1.388E-06 1.409E-06 1.071E-06 9.443E-07 8.935E-07 9.420E-07 1.469E-06 1.879E-06 1.995E-06 1.246E-06 9.718E-07 5.432E-07 2.945E-07 1.733E-07 3.237E-07 5.955E-07 1.112E-06 1.128E-06 8.551E-07 7.543E-07 7.136E-07 7.514E-07 1.172E-06 1.503E-06 1.600E-06 1.031E-06 8.058E-07 4.497E-07 2.439E-07 1.431E-07 2.667E-07 4.917E-07 9.193E-07 9.305E-07 7.045E-07 6.216E-07 5.881E-07 6.185E-07 9.644E-07 1.241E-06 1.323E-06 ANNUAL AVERAGE CHI/Q (SEC/METER CUBED) DISTANCE IN MILES FROM THE SITE SECTOR 5.000 7.500 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000

S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 8.745E-07 6.840E-07 3.812E-07 2.06 8E-07 1.211E-07 2.252E-07 4.159E-07 7.782E-07 7.867E-07 5.948E-07 5.248E-07 4.965E-07 5.217E-07 8.135E-07 1.049E-06 1.120E-06 4.911E-07 3.859E-07 2.140E-07 1.162E-07 6.750E-08 1.245E-07 2.313E-07 4.434E-07 4.368E-07 3.285E-07 2.900E-07 2.744E-07 2.872E-07 4.479E-07 5.821E-07 6.263E-07 3.377E-07 2.662E-07 1.471E-07 7.994E-08 4.618E-08 8.474E-08 1.580E-07 2.973E-07 2.979E-07 2.234E-07 1.972E-07 1.866E-07 1.947E-07 3.038E-07 3.970E-07 4.294E-07 2.095E-07 1.658E-07 9.121E-08 4.960E-08 2.846E-08 5.184E-08 9.714E-08 1.832E-07 1.827E-07 1.364E-07 1.204E-07 1.140E-07 1.184E-07 1.849E-07 2.435E-07 2.653E-07 1.494E-07 1.186E-07 6.504E-08 3.536E-08 2.021E-08 3.662E-08 6.883E-08 1.301E-07 1.292E-07 9.622E-08 8.490E-08 8.045E-08 8.330E-08 1.301E-07 1.722E-07 1.886E-07 1.150E-07 9.147E-08 5.005E-08 2.721E-08 1.550E-08 2.799E-08 5.272E-08 9.973E-08 9.881E-08 7.345E-08 6.478E-08 6.141E-08 6.343E-08 9.912E-08 1.317E-07 1.448E-07 9.290E-08 7.402E-08 4.042E-08 2.197E-08 1.249E-08 2.249E-08 4.242E-08 8.032E-08 7.940E-08 5.895E-08 5.196E-08 4.929E-08 5.080E-08 7.942E-08 1.059E-07 1.168E-07 7.760E-08 6.191E-08 3.376E-08 1.835E-08 1.041E-08 1.870E-08 3.532E-08 6.692E-08 6.604E-08 4.898E-08 4.316E-08 4.095E-08 4.214E-08 6.590E-08 8.809E-08 9.740E-08 6.641E-08 5.304E-08 2.889E-0 8 1.570E-08 8.897E-09 1.595E-08 3.014E-08 5.714E-08 5.630E-08 4.172E-08 3.675E-08 3.489E-08 3.584E-08 5.607E-08 7.511E-08 8.325E-08 5.789E-08 4.628E-08 2.518E-08 1.368E-08 7.744E-09 1.386E-08 2.621E-08 4.927E-08 4.892E-08 3.623E-08 3.189E-08 3.029E-08 3.108E-08 4.863E-08 6.527E-08 7.248E-08 5.121E-08 4.097E-08 2.227E-08 1.209E-08 6.841E-09 1.222E-08 2.314E-08 4.390E-08 4.314E-08 3.193E-08 2.810E-08 2.670E-08 2.736E-08 4.282E-08 5.757E-08 6.405E-08 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-113 Table 2.3-38b CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas

CGS TURBINE AND RADWASTE BLDGS NO DECAY, UNDEPLETED CHI/Q (SEC/METER CUBED) FOR EACH SEGMENT SEGMENT BOUNDARIES IN MILES FROM THE SITE DIRECTION FROM SITE .5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 2.782E-05 2.117E-05 1.211E-05

6.468E-06

4.034E-06

7.812E-06

1.386E-05

2.549E-05

2.640E-05

2.061E-05

1.800E-05

1.715E-05

1.821E-05

2.834E-05

3.509E-05

3.628E-05 7.806E-06 6.000E-06 3.404E-06

1.831E-06

1.113E-06

2.127E-06

3.830E-06

7.081E-06

7.275E-06

5.617E-06

4.929E-06

4.677E-06

4.961E-06

7.730E-06

9.967E-06

1.013E-05 2.832E-06 2.195E-06 1.236E-06

6.680E-07

3.982E-07

7.518E-07

1.370E-06

2.548E-06

2.599E-06

1.986E-06

1.749E-06

1.656E-06

1.751E-06

2.730E-06

3.466E-06

3.656E-06 1.567E-06 1.220E-06 6.834E-07

3.702E-07

2.186E-07

4.096E-07

7.517E-07

1.402E-06

1.424E-06

1.082E-06

9.543E-07

9.030E-07

9.521E-07

1.484E-06

1.899E-06

2.015E-06 1.037E-06 8.099E-07 4.521E-07

2.451E-07

1.439E-07

2.682E-07

4.944E-07

9.242E-07

9.356E-07

7.085E-07

6.251E-07

5.914E-07

6.221E-07

9.699E-07

1.247E-06

1.330E-06 5.081E-07 3.989E-07 2.214E-07

1.202E-07

6.994E-08

1.292E-07

2.397E-07

4.498E-07

4.528E-07

3.410E-07

3.009E-07

2.848E-07

2.982E-07

4.651E-07

6.035E-07

6.485E-07 2.113E-07 1.671E-07 9.199E-08

5.001E-08

2.873E-08

5.239E-08

9.809E-08

1.849E-07

1.845E-07

1.379E-07

1.217E-07

1.152E-07

1.198E-07

1.870E-07

2.459E-07

2.677E-07 1.153E-07 9.172E-08 5.019E-08

2.729E-08

1.555E-08

2.809E-08

5.290E-08

1.001E-07

9.915E-08

7.372E-08

6.502E-08

6.164E-08

6.368E-08

9.951E-08

1.322E-07

1.453E-07 7.771E-08 6.199E-08 3.381E-08

1.837E-08

1.043E-08

1.873E-08

3.538E-08

6.703E-08

6.615E-08

4.906E-08

4.323E-08

4.103E-08

4.221E-08

6.602E-08

8.823E-08

9.755E-08 5.794E-08 4.631E-08 2.520E-08

1.369E-08

7.751E-09

1.387E-08

2.624E-08

4.976E-08

4.897E-08

3.626E-08

3.193E-08

3.032E-08

3.111E-08

4.868E-08

6.534E-08

7.255E-08

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-114 Table 2.3-38c CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas CGS TURBINE AND RADWASTE BLDGS - SPECIFIC POINTS OF INTEREST RELEASE ID TYPE OF LOCATION DIRECTION FROM SITE DISTANCE X/Q X/Q X/Q D/Q (MILES) (METERS) (SEC/CUB.METER) NO DECAY UNDEPLETED (SEC/CUB.METER) 2.260 DAY DECAY UNDEPLETED (SEC/CUB.METER) 8.000 DAY DECAY DEPLETED (PER SQ.METER)

A A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A A A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

EAB (1950 M) EAB (1950 M) EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

SE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE SE SE ESE ENE NNE ESE SE SE NE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 6.40 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 3.00 3.10 3.21 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 15.00 4.80 4.20 4.10 4.30 0.10 9.59 8.29 4.30 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 10298. 6275.

6436.

6597.

6758.

6919.

7080.

7241.

4827.

4988.

5159.

5310.

5471.

5632.

5792. 24135. 7723.

6758.

6597.

6918. 160. 15437.

13346. 6919.

1950. 1950. 1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950. 7.2E-07 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 9.6E-07 1.9E-06 1.8E-06 1.7E-06 1.6E-06 1.5E-06 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 2.4E-07 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 6.9E-07 7.6E-07 4.1E-04 4.2E-07 5.1E-07 6.7E-07 1.1E-05 8.4E-06 4.8E-06 2.6E-06 1.6E-06 3.0E-06 5.4E-06 9.9E-06 1.0E-05 7.9E-06 6.9E-06 6.6E-06 7.0E-06 1.1E-05 1.4E-05 1.4E-05 6.8E-07 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 9.6E-07 9.2E-07 1.9E-06 1.8E-06 1.7E-06 1.6E-06 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 2.1E-07 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 6.5E-07 7.3E-07 4.1E-04 3.9E-07 4.7E-07 6.3E-07 1.1E-05 8.3E-06 4.7E-06 2.5E-06 1.5E-06 2.9E-06 5.3E-06 9.8E-06 1.0E-05 7.8E-06 6.8E-06 6.5E-06 6.9E-06 1.1E-05 1.3E-05 1.4E-05 5.1E-07 9.3E-07 8.9E-07 8.5E-07 8.1E-07 7.8E-07 7.5E-07 7.2E-07 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 1.3E-06 1.3E-06 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.5E-07 8.3E-07 8.1E-07 5.2E-07 5.7E-07 4.0E-04 2.8E-07 3.5E-07 5.0E-07 9.4E-06 7.2E-06 4.1E-06 2.2E-06 1.3E-06 2.6E-06 4.6E-06 8.5E-06 8.8E-06 6.8E-06 5.9E-06 5.6E-06 6.0E-06 9.3E-06 1.2E-05 1.2E-05 2.6E-10 7.0E-10 6.6E-10 6.3E-10 6.0E-10 5.7E-10 5.4E-10 5.1E-10 1.3E-09 1.2E-09 1.1E-09 1.0E-09 9.6E-10 9.0E-10 8.4E-10 6.0E-11 4.9E-10 6.0E-10 3.7E-10 5.1E-10 8.4E-07 1.3E-10 1.7E-10 3.7E-10 7.9E-09 5.5E-09 3.5E-09 1.4E-09 1.3E-09 2.5E-09 5.2E-09 1.1E-08 1.3E-08 1.0E-08 7.3E-09 6.7E-09 7.0E-09 1.1E-08 1.2E-08 1.1E-08 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-115 Table 2.3-38d CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas CGS REACTOR BLDG NO DECAY, UNDEPLETED CORRECTED USING STANDARD OPEN TERRAIN FACTORS ANNUAL AVERAGE CHI/Q (SEC/METER CUBED) DISTANCE IN MILES FROM THE SITE SECTOR 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 3.983E-07 3.015E-07 2.241E-07 9.654E-08 3.448E-08 7.411E-08 2.513E-07 7.930E-07 1.124E-06 1.049E-06 6.008E-07 4.892E-07 5.015E-07 9.120E-07 6.666E-07 4.473E-07 5.147E-07 3.460E-07 2.226E-07 7.983E-08 7.360E-08 1.508E-07 3.020E-07 7.233E-07 8.905E-07 7.337E-07 4.702E-07 5.305E-07 5.031E-07 7.571E-07 6.348E-07 5.728E-07 4.459E-07 2.917E-07 1.853E-07 7.694E-08 7.682E-08 1.476E-07 2.641E-07 5.856E-07 6.762E-07 5.603E-07 3.787E-07 4.710E-07 4.747E-07 6.975E-07 5.775E-07 5.291E-07 2.855E-07 1.836E-07 1.175E-07 5.258E-08 5.380E-08 1.017E-07 1.670E-07 3.550E-07 4.031E-07 3.353E-07 2.340E-07 3.229E-07 3.390E-07 4.987E-07 3.846E-07 3.498E-07 1.417E-07 8.972E-08 5.986E-08 2.801E-08 2.883E-08 5.532E-08 8.155E-08 1.649E-07 1.877E-07 1.577E-07 1.123E-07 2.809E-07 3.184E-07 4.778E-07 2.045E-07 1.780E-07 8.546E-08 5.399E-08 3.986E-08 1.857E-08 1.888E-08 3.697E-08 4.940E-08 9.701E-08 1.113E-07 9.422E-08 6.758E-08 3.180E-07 3.702E-07 5.635E-07 1.394E-07 1.089E-07 6.007E-08 3.809E-08 3.227E-08 1.473E-08 1.476E-08 2.952E-08 3.530E-08 6.783E-08 7.839E-08 6.677E-08 4.829E-08 3.667E-07 4.232E-07 6.623E-07 1.150E-07 7.782E-08 4.723E-08 3.012E-08 2.901E-08 1.300E-08 1.283E-08 2.619E-08 2.826E-08 5.335E-08 6.206E-08 5.308E-08 3.883E-08 5.692E-07 6.426E-07 1.026E-06 1.046E-07 6.216E-08 3.955E-08 2.537E-08 2.518E-08 1.120E-08 1.088E-08 2.256E-08 2.409E-08 4.477E-08 5.232E-08 4.498E-08 4.067E-08 1.128E-06 1.325E-06 1.950E-06 2.207E-07 5.287E-08 3.450E-08 2.223E-08 2.229E-08 9.892E-09 9.460E-09 1.990E-08 2.133E-08 3.913E-08 4.585E-08 3.965E-08 4.490E-08 1.019E-06 1.054E-06 1.650E-06 7.638E-07 4.674E-08 3.085E-08 1.996E-08 2.000E-08 8.868E-09 8.362E-09 1.781E-08 1.931E-08 4.183E-08 4.113E-08 4.297E-08 8.482E-08 8.387E-07 8.662E-07 1.356E-06 6.314E-07 4.227E-08 ANNUAL AVERAGE CHI/Q (SEC/METER CUBED) DISTANCE IN MILES FROM THE SITE SECTOR 5.000 7.500 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000

S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 2.81 4E-08 1.825E-08 1.814E-08 8.058E-09 7.499E-09 1.613E-08 1.778E-08 4.509E-08 3.754E-08 4.676E-08 2.656E-07 7.075E-07 7.296E-07 1.143E-06 5.345E-07 3.896E-08 2.023E-08 1.646E-08 1.472E-08 6.624E-09 4.948E-09 1.203E-08 1.734E-08 2.990E-08 4.858E-08 4.163E-07 4.104E-07 3.901E-07 4.000E-07 6.275E-07 2.974E-07 3.642E-08 1.577E-08 1.027E-08 6.195E-08 2.853E-08 3.627E-09 1.269E-08 1.283E-08 2.199E-08 4.276E-07 3.178E-07 2.789E-07 2.653E-07 2.710E-07 1.652E-07 2.034E-07 2.261E-08 3.200E-07 2.576E-07 1.393E-07 7.526E-08 4.242E-08 7.524E-08 1.423E-07 2.697E-07 2.625E-07 1.945E-07 1.705E-07 1.623E-07 1.650E-07 2.594E-07 3.525E-07 3.975E-07 2.287E-07 1.846E-07 9.960E-08 5.376E-08 3.020E-08 5.333E-08 1.011E-07 1.919E-07 1.860E-07 1.376E-07 1.205E-07 1.148E-07 1.163E-07 1.830E-07 2.499E-07 2.834E-07 1.764E-07 1.427E-07 7.682E-08 4.145E-08 2.323E-08 4.089E-08 7.760E-08 1.474E-07 1.425E-07 1.053E-07 9.214E-08 8.786E-08 8.872E-08 1.398E-07 1.916E-07 2.181E-07 1.428E-07 1.156E-07 6.218E-0 8 3.353E-08 1.876E-08 3.294E-08 6.258E-08 1.190E-07 1.148E-07 8.473E-08 7.408E-08 7.067E-08 7.121E-08 1.123E-07 1.544E-07 1.762E-07 1.195E-07 9.686E-08 5.202E-08 2.804E-08 1.567E-08 2.746E-08 5.221E-08 9.930E-08 9.564E-08 7.055E-08 6.164E-08 5.884E-08 5.918E-08 9.334E-08 1.287E-07 1.473E-07 1.024E-07 8.309E-08 4.458E-08 2.402E-08 1.341E-08 2.346E-08 4.463E-08 8.493E-08 8.168E-08 6.022E-08 5.259E-08 5.021E-08 5.043E-08 7.958E-08 1.099E-07 1.261E-07 8.938E-08 7.259E-08 3.891E-08 2.096E-08 1.169E-08 2.042E-08 3.888E-08 7.401E-08 7.108E-08 5.238E-08 4.572E-08 4.367E-08 4.380E-08 6.915E-08 9.568E-08 1.099E-07 7.915E-08 6.433E-08 3.446E-08 1.856E-08 1.034E-08 1.805E-08 3.437E-08 6.544E-08 6.278E-08 4.625E-08 4.035E-08 3.855E-08 3.862E-08 6.099E-08 8.452E-08 9.728E-08

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-116 Table 2.3-38e CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas

CGS REACTOR BLDG NO DECAY, UNDEPLETED CHI/Q (SEC/METER CUBED) FOR EACH SEGMENT SEGMENT BOUNDARIES IN MILES FROM THE SITE DIRECTION FROM SITE .5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 3.899E-07

2.557E-07

1.635E-07 6.676E-08 6.588E-08

1.279E-07

2.294E-07

5.137E-07

6.024E-07

4.988E-07

3.347E-07

4.184E-07

4.207E-07

6.224E-07

5.045E-07

4.591E-07 1.486E-07

9.471E-08

6.378E-08 2.927E-08 2.996E-08

5.746E-08

8.625E-08

1.770E-07

2.016E-07

1.690E-07

1.195E-07

3.067E-07

3.460E-07

5.205E-07

2.156E-07

1.855E-07 6.171E-08

3.914E-08

3.299E-08 1.506E-08 1.509E-08

3.018E-08

3.624E-08

6.982E-08

8.063E-08

6.861E-08

4.965E-08

4.347E-07

4.968E-07

7.813E-07

1.174E-07

7.985E-08 3.982E-08

2.553E-08

2.517E-08 1.122E-08 1.090E-08

2.258E-08

2.423E-08

4.507E-08

5.264E-08

4.526E-08

4.175E-08

9.267E-07

1.027E-06

1.572E-06

3.944E-07

5.319E-08 3.093E-08

2.000E-08

1.999E-08 8.872E-09 8.368E-09

1.781E-08

1.934E-08

4.224E-08

4.120E-08

4.339E-08

1.400E-07

8.436E-07

8.714E-07

1.364E-06

6.347E-07

4.237E-08 2.000E-08

1.411E-08

3.647E-08 1.668E-08 4.928E-09

1.324E-08

1.543E-08

2.976E-08

2.146E-07

2.904E-07

3.198E-07

4.052E-07

4.159E-07

5.365E-07

3.083E-07

3.085E-08 2.118E-07

1.702E-07

1.045E-07 5.532E-08 2.837E-08

5.160E-08

9.519E-08

1.801E-07

2.652E-07

1.966E-07

1.723E-07

1.641E-07

1.669E-07

2.045E-07

2.738E-07

2.635E-07 1.769E-07

1.431E-07

7.704E-08 4.156E-08 2.330E-08

4.103E-08

7.785E-08

1.479E-07

1.430E-07

1.057E-07

9.247E-08

8.817E-08

8.906E-08

1.403E-07

1.923E-07 2.188E-07 1.196E-07

9.698E-08

5.209E-08 2.808E-08 1.569E-08

2.750E-08

5.228E-08

9.945E-08

9.579E-08

7.066E-08

6.174E-08

5.893E-08

5.928E-08

9.350E-08

1.289E-07

1.475E-07 8.944E-08

7.264E-08

3.894E-08 2.098E-08 1.170E-08

2.044E-08

3.891E-08

7.407E-08

7.115E-08

5.243E-08

4.576E-08

4.371E-08

4.385E-08

6.922E-08

9.576E-08

1.100E-07

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-117 Table 2.3-38f CGS Calculation, Terrain Features, Desert Sigmas CGS REACTOR BLDG, SPECIFIC POINTS OF INTEREST RELEASE ID TYPE OF LOCATION DIRECTION FROM SITE DISTANCE X/Q X/Q X/Q D/Q (MILES) (METERS) (SEC/CUB.METER)

NO DECAY UNDEPLETED (SEC/CUB.METER) 2.260 DAY DECAY UNDEPLETED (SEC/CUB.METER) 8.000 DAY DECAY DEPLETED (PER SQ.METER)

B B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B B B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE PROTECTED ARE LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

LPZ (4828)

EAB (1950 M) EAB (1950 M) EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

EAB (1950 M)

SE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE ESE SE SE ESE ENE NNE ESE SE SE NE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 6.40 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 3.00 3.10 3.21 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 15.00 4.80 4.20 4.10 4.30 0.10 9.59 8.29 4.30 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 10298. 6275.

6436.

6597.

6758.

6919.

7080.

7241.

4827.

4988.

5159.

5310.

5471.

5632.

5792. 24135. 7723.

6758.

6597.

6918. 160. 15437.

13346. 6919.

1950. 1950. 1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950.

1950. 3.7E-07 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 1.6E-06 1.5E-06 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.0E-06 1.2E-06 1.5E-06 1.8E-06 1.9E-06 1.8E-06 1.8E-06 3.5E-07 5.7E-07 1.5E-06 9.8E-07 4.1E-08 3.1E-06 2.1E-07 2.6E-07 6.8E-08 1.9E-07 1.2E-07 7.9E-08 3.8E-08 3.8E-08 7.2E-08 1.1E-07 2.3E-07 2.6E-07 2.2E-07 1.6E-07 2.7E-07 2.9E-07 4.4E-07 2.7E-07 2.4 E-0 7 3.5E-07 1.6E-06 1.6E-06 1.5E-06 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 1.3E-06 1.3E-06 9.9E-07 1.2E-06 1.5E-06 1.8E-06 1.8E-06 1.8E-06 1.7E-06 3.1E-07 5.5E-07 1.5E-06 9.3E-07 4.1E-08 3.1E-06 2.0E-07 2.5E-07 6.6E-08 1.9E-07 1.2E-07 7.9E-08 3.8E-08 3.7E-08 7.1E-08 1.1E-07 2.3E-07 2.6E-07 2.2E-07 1.6E-07 2.7E-07 2.9E-07 4.4E-07 2.7E-07 2.4E-07 3.4E-07 1.3E-06 1.3E-06 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 8.1E-07 9.6E-07 1.2E-06 1.5E-06 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 2.9E-07 5.5E-07 1.2E-06 7.7E-07 3.9E-08 3.1E-06 1.9E-07 2.4E-07 6.6E-08 1.8E-07 1.2E-07 7.6E-08 3.6E-08 3.7E-08 7.0E-08 1.1E-07 2.2E-07 2.5E-07 2.1E-07 1.5E-07 2.6E-07 2.9E-07 4.3E-07 2.6E-07 2.3E-07 3.2E-10 7.0E-10 6.6E-10 6.4E-10 6.0E-10 5.7E-10 5.5E-10 5.2E-10 1.2E-09 1.2E-09 1.1E-09 1.0E-09 9.4E-10 8.9E-10 8.3E-10 7.6E-11 5.9E-10 6.0E-10 3.8E-10 1.8E-10 4.0E-08 1.6E-10 2.0E-10 1.3E-10 1.6E-09 1.0E-09 5.7E-10 1.9E-10 2.4E-10 4.8E.10 9.0E-10 2.0E-09 2.8E-09 2.5E-09 1.8E-09 1.8E-09 1.5E-09 2.4E-09 2.0E-09 1.9E-09 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-118

TABLE 39 (a through f)

DELETED C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-119 Table 2.3-40 Frequency of Wind Resuspension Periods at Hanf ord (1953-1970)

Total Dust Hours 476 Total Dust Days 142 Number of Dust Storms 150 Average Dust Hr/Yr.

26.4 Average Dust Days/Yr.

7.9 Average

Dust Storms Per Year

8.3 Range

in Duration of Du st Storms (hr.)

1-16 Average Duration of Du st Storms (hr.)

3.2 Average

Dust Storm Concentration (from Table 2) mg/m 3 6.77

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-120 Table 2.3-41 Dust Concentration Dependency on Wind Speed and Direction at Hanford 1953-1970 Predicted Concentration From Visibility, mg/m 3 WIND DIRECTION 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 WIND SPEED CLASS (MPH) 55-63 64-UP OVERALL AVERAGE 25-31 32-38 39-46 47-54 SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 1.74 .00 3.29 2.02 3.29 1.74 4.38 .00

.00 2.71 .00

.00 7.83 .00 2.71 1.74 1.74 3.49 1.88 2.60 2.92 3.38 4.60 .00 3.29 .00 .00 2.71 1.62 2.48 6.34 1.81 1.83 2.64 2.58 2.58 3.50 3.41 3.38 3.05 2.44 .00 .00 1.38 1.38 1.62 3.54 4.96 2.89 1.77 1.50 4.80 5.06 6.08 4.54 2.19 3.60 .00 .00 1.25 5.70 2.21 2.75 4.13 5.37 1.99 1.98 .00 12.99 7.04 2.81 .00 2.71 .00 .00

.00 15.92 3.86 8.83 12.95 2.71 3.29 2.23 .00

.00 7.83 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4.13 13.87 48.31 .00 4.13 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 988.88* .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.78 7.17 2.95 19.40 7.67 3.54 2.39 2.08 2.77 3.81 4.77 3.84 2.48 2.78 2.71 OVERALL** AVERAGE .00 2.84 3.00 3.15 4.15 3.71 8.57 22.22 .00 988.88 .00 6.77

.00 NO DATA

• VISIBILITY 0 TO 1/16 MILE DUE TO ONE-HOUR DUSTSTORM

• • WEIGHTED AVERAGE BASED ON TABLE 2.3-42 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.3-121 Table 2.3-42 Hours Satisfying Dust Storm Criteria at Hanford (1953-1970) Hours With (1) Visibility 7 Mile and Dust Reported or (2) Visibility 7 to 14 Miles, Windspeed 5.8 M/Sec: RH 70% Dust Assumed WIND DIRECTION 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 WIND SPEED CLASS (MPH) 55-63 64-UP TOTAL HOURS 25-31 32-38 39-46 47-54 SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0

1 0 1 1 1 5 6 8 12 3 3

0 1 0 0 1

3 4 3 7 3 5 4 6 34 31 19 3 6 0 0 1

1 3 13 17 5 11 3 2 10 23 15 6 2 0 0 1

3 11 24 39 7 6 5 2 1 7 5 0 1 0 0 0

3 13 26 13 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 6 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 33 74 81 18 29 21 18 58 66 44 9 10 1 TOTAL HOURS 0 9 42 129 112 110 60 13 0 1 0 476 Amendment 55 May 2001 Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Frequency Based on the Period 1947-69 at Hanford 010126.01 2.3-1 Figure Form No. 960690 Draw. No.Rev.8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 A 25 10 5 B 100 50 C 2 D 1000 500 Return Period (Years) 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 18 24 60 Minutes Duration Hours Intensity (Inches per Hour)

To use this chart, select any desired rainfall intensity and duration and read from the diagonal lines the expected frequency of such intensity

and duration. For example, rainfall intensity of 1.3 inches per hour for

10 minutes can be expected to occur, on average, once every five years (point A). However, such intensity can be expected for 30 minutes

duration only about once in 100 years (point B). The return period for

intensity for 60 minutes duration is greater than 1000 years (point C).

There are, of course, variations in use of the chart. Suppose, for example, it is desired to find the "100-year storm" for 60 minutes. This

is 0.8 inch (point D).

250 Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Greatest Depth of Snow on Ground During 24 of 25Winters of Record at Hanford (1946-47 through 1969-70)990306.14 2.3-2 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.100 80 60 40 20 10 8 6 4 2 10.010.10.52510203040506070809095989999.999.99PROBABILITY (%) THAT GREATEST DEPTH WILL EXCEED GIVEN AMOUNTPROBABILITY (%) THAT GREATEST DEPTH WILL NOT EXCEED GIVEN AMOUNT99.9999.999.899959080706050403020105210.50.20.10.050.01 INCHES 1964-65*GREATEST DEPTH WAS LESS THAN 1 INCH DURING ONE WINTER (1957-58) 98 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report

Amendment 55 May 2001 Peak Wind Gust Return Probability Diagram 990306.17 2.3-4 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.100AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN OCCURRENCE OF A GIVENSPEED AND THAT OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER SPEED SPEED (MPH) 1.0001 1.001 1.010 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 200 300 400 600 800 1000 2000 3000 4000 8000Y = REDUCED VARIATEEXTREME PROBABILITY PAPERRETURN PERIOD = T 90 80 70 60 50 40-2-1 0 1

2 3 4 5

6 7

8OBSERVED VARIATE = X JUNE 1957 JUNE 1957JANUARY 1972 MODE MEAN Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report400 FT LEVEL200 FT LEVEL50 FT LEVEL Amendment 55 May 2001Dust Occurrences Pe r W ind Speeds to 400 ft Heights 990306.18 2.3-5 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.400 300 200 100 001020304050607080HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND (FT)

()()(a) AVERAGE MASS OF DUST PER FOOT 3, AND(b) MASS MEAN DIAMETER OF DUST PARTICLES.

METEOROLOG Y TOWER, HAPO. AUGUST 11, 1955(a) MASS PER CUBIC FOOT (x 10

-3 GM/ft 3)(b) MASS MEAN DIAMETER ()Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Near-Surface Airborne Dust Concentration as aFunction of Average Air Velocity 990306.19 2.3-6 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.300 100 10 1 0369121518212427301950 DATADUST @ 4 FT.

WIND @ 1.5 METERS 3AIR VELOCITY (MPH)DUST @ 8" WIND @ 7 FT.1/11/72 DUST STORM AIRBORNE DUST CONCENTRATION, mg/m 3 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001D.P.Monthly Hourly Average of Temperature andRelative Humidity - January thru April 990306.21 2.3-7.1 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.January PST020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 PST F and %020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 FebruaryTemp. (D.B.)

R.H.March PSTTemp. (D.B.)W.B.020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R.H.PST F and %F and %F and %020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 AprilTemp. (D.B.)D.P.R.H.W.B.W.B.D.P.D.P.Temp. (D.B.)W.B.R.H.Monthly and annual hourly averages of Dry Bulb (D.B.) and Wet Bulb (W.B.)Temperature Relative Humidity (R.H.) and temperature of the dew point (D.P.)

(1957 - 1970)

Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Monthly Hourly Average of Temperature andRelative Humidity - May thru August 990306.40 2.3-7.2 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.May PSTTemp. (D.B.)W.B.D.P.020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R.H.PST F and %020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 JuneTemp. (D.B.)

R.H.July PSTTemp. (D.B.)W.B.D.P.020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R.H.PST F and %F and %F and %020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 AugustTemp. (D.B.)D.P.R.H.W.B.W.B.D.P.Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Monthly Hourly Average of Temperature andRelative Humidity - September thru December 990306.22 2.3-7.3 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Monthly and annual hourly averages of Dry Bulb (D.B.) and Wet Bulb (W.B.) TemperatureRelative Humidity (R.H.) and temperature of the dew point (D.P.)

(1957-1970)

September PSTTemp. (D.B.)W.B.D.P.020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R.H.PST F and %020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 OctoberTemp. (D.B.)

R.H.November PSTTemp. (D.B.)W.B.D.P.020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R.H.PST F and %F and %F and %020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 DecemberTemp. (D.B.)D.P.R.H.W.B.W.B.D.P.Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Probability (%) that the First Hourly Observation of an Inversion will Mark the Beginning of an Inversion Run of N Hr 990306.03 2.3-8.1 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.100 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 0.010.10.112 51020304050 6070809095989999.999.99 N(Hours)Percent An inversion run of N hours is N

consecutive hourly

observations of

inversion (T 200 -T 3 >0.0)plotted points based

on 1952-1969 data Jan-Feb 14 Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report Probability (%) that the First Hourly Observation of an Inversion will Mark the Beginning of an Inversion Run of N Hr 990306.02 2.3-8.2 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.100 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 0.010.10.112 51020304050 6070809095989999.999.99 N(Hours)Percent An inversion run of N hours is N

consecutive hourly

observations of

inversion (T 200 -T 3 >0.0)plotted points based

on 1952-1969 data March-April May-June 10 8 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Probability (%) that the First Hourly Observation of an Inversion will Mark the Beginning of an Inversion Run of N Hr 990306.04 2.3-8.3 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.100 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 0.010.10.512 51020304050 6070809095989999.999.99 N(Hours)Percent An inversion run of N hours is N

consecutive hourly

observations of

inversion (T 200 -T 3 >0.0)plotted points based

on 1952-1969 data July-Aug11 8 Sept-Oct Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report Probability (%) that the First Hourly Observation of an Inversion will Mark the Beginning of an Inversion Run of N Hr 990306.05 2.3-8.4 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.100 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 0.010.10.512 51020304050 6070809095989999.999.99 N(Hours)Percent 15 Nov-Dec Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report An inversion run

of N hours is N

consecutive hourly

observations of

inversion (T 200 -T 3 >0.0)plotted points based

on 1952-1969 data Amendment 55 May 2001Topographic Cross Sections of RegionSurrounding Site 990306.23 2.3-9 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.600 400MSL FT.600 400 600 400 600 400 800 600 400 800 600 400 800 600 400 800MSL FT.MSL FT.MSL FT.SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW North NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE SOUTH1086420246810 km (6.2 mi.)Plant Site 600 400 Plant Site Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Yearly Hourly Average of Temperature and Relative Humidity 990306.24 2.3-10 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Monthly and annual hourly averages of Dry Bulb (D.B.) and Wet Bulb (W.B.) TemperatureRelative Humidity (R.H.) and temperature of the dew point (D.P.)

(1957-1970)

Annual PST F and %Temp. (D.B.)W.B.D.P.020406081012141618202224 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R.H.Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Cumulative (%) Frequency of Hourly Centerline( /Q at Site Boundary Circular Distance of 1.212Miles From Source (April 1974-March 1975) 990306.252.3-11 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.0.010.050.20.512510203040506070809095 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8/Q (sec/M 3)/Q (sec/M 3) Cumulative Probability (% Greater Than)Wake FactorNo Wake Factor Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Cumulative (%) Frequency of Hourly Centerline( /Q at Site Boundary Circular Distance of 1.212Miles From Source (April 1975-March 1976) 990306.26 2.3-12 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.0.010.050.20.512510203040506070809095 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8/Q (sec/M 3)/Q (sec/M 3) Cumulative Probability (% Greater Than)Wake FactorNo Wake Factor Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Cumulative (%) Frequency of Occurrence of (/Q for PostulatedAccidents of 8, 16, 72, and 624 Hr at Outer Boundary of LowPopulation Zone (3.0 Miles from Source) (April 1974-March 1975) 990306.27 2.3-13 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.0.010.050.20.512510203040506070809095 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8/Q (sec/M 3)/Q (sec/M 3) Cumulative Probability (% Greater Than). 624 Hours 72 Hours8 Hours (Wake Factor)8 Hours (No Wake Factor) 16 Hours Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Cumulative (%) Frequency of Occurrence of ( /Q for PostulatedAccidents of 8, 16, 72, and 624 Hr at Outer Boundary of LowPopulation Zone (3.0 Miles from Source) (April 1975-March 1976) 990306.28 2.3-14 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.0.010.050.20.512510203040506070809095 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8/Q (sec/M 3)/Q (sec/M 3) Cumulative Probability (% Greater Than) 624 Hours 72 Hours8 Hours (Wake Factor)8 Hours (No Wake Factor) 16 Hours Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Annual Average /Q by Sector at the SiteBoundary for First and Second Annual Cycle Data 990306.29 2.3-15 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.10-5NNNENEENEEESESESSESSSWSWWSW WWNWNWNNW 10-6 10-7 10-8 Down Wind Sector (Solid Line is for 4/74 - 3/75 data; dashed line is for 4/75 - 3/76 data)No Building Wake FactorBuilding Wake Factor Included Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report CHI/Q (sec/m

3)

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDC N-0 2-0 0 0 2.4-1 2.4 HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING

The italicized information is historical and was provided to support the application for an operating license.

2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC

DESCRIPTION

2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities Columbia Generating Station (C GS) is located in the Hanfor d Site within Benton County, Washington, approximately 3 mile s west of the Columbia River at river mile (RM) 352, 10 miles north of Richland and 45 miles downstream from Grant County PUD Pr iest Rapids Dam. The site coordinates are appr oximately 46° 28' Nort h Latitude and 119° 20' West Longitude.

The Columbia River is the predominant hydrologic feature of th e area and provides principal drainage for the surrounding area.

The riverbed is clearly mark ed in the terrain and at the

proximity of the site the river flows between high banks. The Columb ia River approximate riverbed elevation is 328 ft above mean sea le vel (msl); the ground elev ation at the site is approximately 440 ft. Another hydr ologic feature of the area is th e Yakima River, which at its closest approach flows within 8 miles of the plant site. The river system is shown in the hydrographic map, Figure 2.4-1. Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 show the major hydrologic features of the area.

All Seismic Category I structures are located above maximum pos tulated flood elevations. For flood elevations refer to Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4.

Water for cooling tower makeup water and other plant requireme nts is withdrawn from the Columbia River. The intake system is designed for a maximum capacity of 25,000 gpm (55.7 cfs). The non-safety-relat ed makeup water intake system is approximately 3 miles east of the plant and is made up of two offshore perforated pipe inle ts, two lead-in pipes, and pump house structure.

A topographic map and contour map of the region surrounding the site are shown in

Figures 2.4-2 and 2.4-3. The natural drainage features of the surrounding area have not been changed by the cons truction of CGS.

2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere

The Columbia River, the largest river flowing into the Pacific Ocean from North America, is one of this world's greatest sources of hydroelectric power. Its annual discharge of 18,000,000 acre ft (1 acre-ft = 43,560 ft

3) is exceeded in the No rth American continent only by the Mississippi, Mackenzi e and St. Lawrence Rivers.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.4-2 The Columbia River drains an area of approximately 258,000 square m iles, lying to the west of the Continental Divide in the northwestern part of the U.S. (85%) and southwestern part of Canada (15%). Major tributaries are th e Kootenay, Snake, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Okanogan, Yakima, and Willamette Rivers.

In determining the Standard Pr oject Flood (SPF) the drainage area was divided into subbasins.

These subbasins can be grouped into six general areas w ith similar hydrometeorological characteristics.

The six areas are: (1) upper Columbia, which includes the drainage of the area in Canada and the northern part of the United States above Ch ief Joseph Dam; (2) Middle Columbia, which includes the area between Pasco and Chief Joseph Dam; (3) Upper and Middle Snake River; (4) Lower Snake River, the area between Weiser and Ice Harbor Dam; (5) Lower Columbia, including the area between Bonneville Dam and Pasco; (6) the Columb ia below Bonneville Dam, including the Willamette River.

The river basin has five outstanding physical features: the Rocky Mountain System, the Columbia Plateau, the Colu mbia River Gorge, the Cascade Range and Puget Trough.

The Rocky Mountain System is the major range with elevations from 2000 to over 12,000 ft.

There are permanent glaciers and extensive snow fields at highe r elevations and deep valleys that provide the principal drai nage for the head-waters of the Columbia, Kootenay and other rivers.

The Columbia Plateau is a great, generally treeless, semiarid plateau covering over 100,000 square miles in the centr al portion of the basin. This plateau is in an area between the Cascade Range and the Rocky Mountains. The pl ateau was formed by successive flows of lava and filled to a general thickness of approximately 4000 ft. The Columbia River flows 1214 miles from its source in Columbia Lake (el. 2700 ft) in British Columbia, near the crest of the Rockies, to the Pacific Ocean at Astori a, Oregon. It sweeps around the north and northwesterly sides of the Colu mbia Plateau to central Washi ngton to be joined by the Snake River. The Columbia River flows directly across the axis of the Cascades in a narrow gorge to the Pacific.

The Columbia Gorge is the gat eway from the Pacific Ocean to the intermountain Columbia Plateau. Tide flows 140 miles up-river. For most of its length the river flows in deep valleys

and canyons.

High flows occur in late spring and early su mmer with melting of s now on the mountainous watershed. Low flows occur in autumn and winter.

The Columbia River has been regulated by dams and reservoirs over the past 35 years. A large portion of the main stream and major tributaries is devel oped to meet various C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDC N-0 2-0 0 0 2.4-3 functional requirements, such as flood control, hydroelectric power, irrigation, municipal and industrial supply, etc. The regulation of Columbia River floods is accomplished by use of reservoir storage space pr ovided primarily for irrigation or for hydroelectric power utilization.

The volume of usable reservoir storage space is on the order of 20% to 25%.

There are seven dams upstream and four dams downs tream of the site on the main stream of the Columbia River within the U.S. These dams are listed in Table 2.4-1. The Columbia River flow in the reach of CGS is controlled by regul ation of the upstream re servoir projects, which have a total usable storage capacity of approximately 35 million ac re-ft. Some control of flow in the immediate vicinity of th e site is by regulation of th e nearest upstream hydroelectric projects, Priest Rapids Dam, at RM 397, containing about 45, 000 acre-ft of active storage, and Wanapum Dam, at RM 415, containi ng about 161,000 ac re-ft of active storage. Some minimal effect on the river flow in the vicinity of the site is caused by McNary Dam, at RM 292, approximately 60 RM downs tream from the site area.

Flows in the Columbia River during the summer, fall, and wi nter vary from a low of 36,000 ft 3/sec to as much as 160,000 ft 3/sec. During spring runo ff high flows ranging from 250,000 ft 3/sec to 450,000 ft 3/sec have been recorded.

The average annual flow is 120,000 ft 3/sec; during low flow periods flo ws may average about 60,000 ft 3/sec (see Figure 2.4

-4).

The Grand Coulee and Bonneville dams were put into operation prior to World War II and several dams were built after the war. The four downstream dams include large locks to permit the passage of river ve ssels. Several of the dams provide emergency floodwater storage. Grand Coulee, the largest and most co mplex of the dams, augments the low winter flows for the entire system from its 9,402,00 0 acre-ft of available storage (of which approximately 5,100,000 acre-ft is active storage) and also pumps water to the Columbia River Irrigation Project.

The river channel near the CGS site varies betwee n 400 and 600 yards in width for low water and normal high water level, resp ectively. The depth varies from about 25 ft to 45 ft for normal high water and flood high wate r levels, respec tively. Velocities va ry from 3 ft/sec to over 11 ft/sec depending on section and flow. Average water temperature is 51°F.

Temperatures may reach a low of 32°F and a high of 68°F. (See Table 2.4-2 and Figure 2.4

-4.)

A list of water usage downstream of CGS, obtained from records of the Department of Ecology, State of Washington, for water rights as of February 1980, is presented in Table 2.4-3. The closest municipal surface water user is the C ity of Richland with an intake approximately 12 miles downstream.

The location of local groundw ater users is discussed in Section 2.4.13.2.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 LDC N-0 2-0 0 0 2.4-4 2.4.2 FLOODS

2.4.2.1 Flood History

Floods in the Columbia Ri ver Basin are grouped as:

a. The interior basin east of the Ca scades, caused by melting snowpack and occurring from May through June;

b. The Willamette and other basins, west of the Cascades, caused by direct runoff from intense winter rain occa sionally augmented by snowmelt.

There is some overlapping effect within these two groupings. At certain elevations, basins in the interior Columbia drainage area occasionally have signific ant flood flows resulting from winter rain or snowmelt. Thes e are local floods and do not usually contribute sufficient flow to cause flooding of the main Columbia River. Major floods in the Columbia River Basin result from rapid spring melting of the snowpack over a wide area, generally augmented by rain or by above-normal precipitation in May, accompanied by a major chinook wind which causes rapid area temperature rise.

The annual spring snowmelt flood of the main interior basin is characterized by relatively un iform distribution over the bas in. The snowfall and individual snow storms may vary, but the in tegration of all storms over the winter period smoothes the irregularities, with the result that the distri bution of the flood runoff is reasonably constant from year to year.

The maximum historical flood of record is th at of June 7, 1894, which resulted from a combination of hydrometeorologic conditions, in cluding heavy snowpack and rapid melt plus rainfall. The peak disc harge at CGS was 740,000 ft 3/sec for the Columbia River, as estimated from high water marks at Wena tchee, Washington (Reference 2.4-1). The largest recent flood, occurring in 1948, had an observed peak discharge of 690,000 ft 3/sec at Hanford. These floods were spring floods resulting from the melt of a large snowpack combined with the spring rains (Reference 2.4-2). Water surface profiles for the Columbia River in the vicinity of the site as derived by the Cor p s of Engineers (Refe r ence 2.4-2) are given in Figure 2.4

-5.

The plant site is located approxi mately three miles west of the Columbia River at RM 352 with reactor floor elevation of 441 ft msl, which is 68 ft above the water level estimated for the largest historical flood (approxi mately 373 ft msl). There is no record of flooding in the immediate site area.

2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations

Flood protection of safety-related components is based on the highest calculated flood water level including wave effects, resulting from intense local precipitation.

Several different probable maximum events were considered, including the Corps of Engineers design-project

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 LDCN-03-069 2.4-5 flood considered to be "the mo st severe reasonably possible.

" Wave action caused by storm winds, the effects of failure of upstream dam surge floodi ng, and ice flooding were also considered.

The results of these analyses (described in Section 2.4.3) indicate that the CGS site is safe from floods and that no flood pr otection measures are required.

The Hydrogen Storage and Supply Facility located 0.6 miles south-southeast of the plant is subject to flooding due to the PMP flood discussed in Section 2.4.3.1. Equipment storing liqui d and gaseous hydrogen has been analyzed for the effe cts of this flood (Section 2.4.2.3). As discussed in sections that follow, plant safety-relat ed structures are located above high water elevations associated with Columbia River flooding (Sections 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.3), intense local precipitation (Sections 2.4.3.5 and 2.4.3.6), and upriver dam failures (Section 2.4.4).

2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation

Intense local summer thunder st orms can produce short duration rains which have the potential for causing serious flood. Winter precipitation may occur as rain or snow and would be less intense than the worst summer thunderstorm. The probable maximum precipitation (PMP)

event for the CGS site has been determined using the methodology deve loped by the U.S. Weather Bureau and reported in Hydrometeorological Report No. 43, "Probable Maximum Precipitation, Northwest States" (Reference 2.4-3).

The plant area slopes easterly to a broad channe l which is adequate to store and drain the PMP. Construction contours of the site are shown in Figure 2.4-28. The reactor building and the spray ponds are located at elevations that are safe from the effect of any flood resulting from the maximum precipitation event.

Winter precipitation may occur as rain or snow. The winter season s nowfall has ranged from less than 0.5 in. to a maximum of 12 in. in December 1964. There is no ice accumulation at the site.

To accommodate surface drainage during severe climatic conditions such as rainfall and rapid snow melts, a system of catch basins and dry we lls is provided with inlet elevations a minimum of 6 in. lower than the nearest road and a minimum of 12 in. lower than the finished floor elevation of the nearest building(s).

Runoff from the PMP event is accommodated by designing the roadways such that the high point of the road is 6 in. to 1 ft below the fini shed floor elevation of the adjacent safety-related building(s). Runoff from this event is from the northwest to the s outheast across the site plateau to the low area southeast of the plant si te. The general plant s ite is nominally 9 ft above the maximum calculated water surface elevation resulting from the postulated PMP (Section 2.4.3.3). Therefore, the si te grading precludes the potentia l flooding of safety-related structures. The Hydrogen Storage and Supply Faci lity is subject to th e PMP event flooding.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 LDCN-03-058,03-069 2.4-6 The elevation of the facility is 420 ft ms l and the PMP flood level is 431.1 ft msl (Section 2.4.3.5). See Section 10.4.10 for more discussion.

Roofs of buildings are designed to take, with adequate drainage, any instantaneous or local intense precipitation. Discharge from roof drai ns is carried by means of a storm sewer system to a manhole located southeast of the reactor building. From that point a pipeline with a northeast alignment transfer s the discharge to a low point of disposal about 1500 ft away from the plant site.

The roofs of safety-related buildings (diesel generator building, radw aste/control building, standby service water pump house) are concrete beam and slab construction except the high roof of the reactor building, which is metal de ck on steel framing.

The minimum roof slope for all structures is 1/8 in. per ft for adequate drainage and the roof areas are encompassed by curbs or parapet walls up to 3 ft 6 in. high. Roof plans, including details of roof drains and overflow scuppers, are provided in Figure 2.4-6. Assuming that the roof drains are completely blocked during the PMP event, ove rflow scuppers limit the depth of water to within the design load carrying capability of th e roofs. Those safety-rel ated structures that do not have this relief capability structurally can carry the entire PMP accumulations.

2.4.3 PROBABLE

MAXIMUM FLOO D ON STREAMS AND RIVERS

Analyses for probable maximum flood (PMF) and SPF on the Columbia River (Reference 2.4-2) are consistent with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2. The SPF for the Mid-Columbia Reach of the highly developed and regulated Columbia River is defined as 570,000 ft 3/sec (Reference 2.4-4). The unregulated SPF for the same reach is 740,000 ft 3/sec. The unregulated PMF at the si te is estimated to be 1,600,000 ft 3/sec (References 2.4-2 , 2.4-4 , and 2.4-5).

Adjustment of the flood profiles for the Hanford region reported in Reference 2.4-4 , results in a regulated PMF of 1,440,000 ft 3/sec and a water level of 390 ft at the Seismic Category II makeup water structure. This structure is not designed to function thro ughout the PMF but is designed for the SPF (unregulated) of 740,000 ft 3/sec.

Although assumed to exist for the purpose of flood hydrograph calcula tions, Ben Franklin Dam is not a federally authorized project. As originally planned it would have been a low head dam with only a negligible ef fect on extreme flood flows (Reference 2.4-6). The design basis flood for the CG S site area results from the PMP event on the adjacent drainage basin and not from fl ooding of the Columbia River.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-12-020 2.4-7 2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation

The PMP event which was presented in the CGS PSAR was subsequently reevaluated in the preparation of the PSAR for WPPSS Nuclear Pr oject No. 1 (Docket 50-460). The analysis presented here is consistent with the latter document.

Precipitation in the vicinity of the site has been classified by the U.S. Weather Bureau, Reference 2.4-3 , as convergence precipita tion, orographic precipitation, and thunderstorm precipitation. The methodology for predicting the total amount of precipitation from each of these events, as given in Reference 2.4-3 , requires the adding toge ther of the convergence PMP and the orographic PMP to obtain a single pr ecipitation for a general storm. A separate analysis is then required for thunderstorms. Thunderstorms in the vicinity of the site can be locally very intense for short periods of time and hence, have the potential for causing serious flooding. The PMP for both a general storm and a thunderstorm were analyzed as given in

Chapters 6 and 5 , respectively, of Reference 2.4-3 for a 38.5 mile 2 basin at the site. This basin is shown in Figure 2.4-8 and is described in Section 2.4.3.3. The calculated general storm PMP results in a 24-hr a nd 48-hr precipitation of 7.9 in. and 10.1 in., respectively.

A thunderstorm PMP yields 9.2 in. in a 6-hr period. Therefore, the thunderstorm is considerably more severe. The thunderstorm PMP hydrograph is

Time Rain (hr) (in.) 1 0.6 2 1.6 3 5.2 4 0.9 5 0.5 6 0.4 Total 9.2

2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses

Infiltration losses have been estimated in the vicinity of the sites as 1.5 in./hr (Reference 2.4-7). However, for the analysis below, an average antecedent moisture condition (Condition II as defined in Reference 2.4-8) was assumed. As e xplained in the following section, the 60-minute retenti on loss rate is 0.15 in./hr.

2.4.3.3 Runoff and Str eam Course Models

The drainage basin common to the reactor building and spray ponds is shown in Figure 2.4-8. The entire area drains to a broad channel that extends in a north-south direction for about 7 miles, and ranges from about 2000 ft to over a mile wide.

All plant structures are located on C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-8 high ground to the west of the channel. At a point about 2.8 miles south of the reactor site, the four-lane Department of Energy (DOE) highway crosses the drainage basin. The area above this section is 33.2 miles

2. To evaluate the effect of the PMP event on the plant area, the peak discharge at the highway crossing, 2.8 miles downstream of the plant, was calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation procedure for computing design floods on ungauged basins from thunderstorm rainfall in the western U.S. (Reference 2.4-8). Important assumptions used in the triangular hydrograph procedur e of Reference 2.4-8 are a. Hydrologic soil group B,

b. Land use and treatment cla ss - poor pasture or range,

c. Thunderstorm cover-index is brush-sage-grass combination with 50% or less cover density, and

d. Thunderstorm minimum 15-minute retention loss rate of 0.06 in./15 minutes

and 60-minute retention lo ss rate of 0.15 in./hr.

Additionally, no credit was taken in the hydrograph analysis for potential st orage in the stream channel or upstream sub-basins.

The time of concentration, T c , for the watershed above the hi ghway crossing was computed to be 7.5 hr. The PMF hydrograph is shown in Figure 2.4-7 for the 33.2 mile 2 drainage basin. A peak discharge of 21,400 ft 3/sec was determined.

Based on this PMF, an upstream water surface profile was determined using the Corps of Engineers HEC Standard-Step Procedure (Reference 2.4-9). A total of eleven cross sections were used (seven downstream, one at the plant, and three upstream as shown in Figure 2.4-3

). Details of the channel cro ss sections are shown in Figure 2.4-9. The Manning roughness coefficient was conservatively taken as n=0.035 in the main channel sections, and n=0.05 in the overbank areas.

Using the computational procedure of Reference 2.4-9, it was determined that the channel restrictions at cro ss sections 5 and 7 (Figure 2.4-3) do not control the flow. The stillwater elevation at the plant site (cross section 8) was determined to be 431.1 ft msl. The water surface profile is shown in Figure 2.4-10.

2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow

The PMF runoff hydrograph produced by the PMP at cross section 1 (Figure 2.4-3) is shown in Figure 2.4-7. The peak discharge at this location is 21,400 ft 3/sec.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 62 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2013 LDCN-12-043 2.4-9 2.4.3.5 Water Leve l Determinations

As discussed in Section 2.4.3.3, the water elevation of a flood at the plant site generated by the PMP event is 431.1 ft msl. This flood condition has a higher estimated elevation than any flood of the Columbia River.

2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity Procedures published by the Corps of Engineers (References 2.4-10 and 2.4-11 were used to determine the wind wave activity. The effective fetch for the pr edominant July wind direction (north) is 3450 ft (0.65 miles). The effective fetch diagram is shown in Figure 2.4-11. The calculated extreme 2-year over water wind for th e north-to-south directi on, based on area data, is 63.5 mph. This wind results in a maximum wave he ight of 4.0 ft, with the assumption of a water depth of 12 ft (the average depth in cro ss sections 8, 9, and 10). The other potential wind directions ENE and ESE were eval uated but found to be less severe.

The wind setup has been computed to be 0.3 ft , and the maximum wave runup is 1.9 ft on a smooth, 1 on 8 slope of compacted naturally occurring sands and gravels. Therefore, the design water surface elevation is 433.3 ft msl. This is less th an the east spray pond overflow weir at elevation of 434.5 ft msl.

2.4.4 POTENTIAL

DAM FAILURES, SEISMICALLY INDUCED

Analyses of floods resulting fr om potential dam failures were investigated by the Corps of Engineers for the Columbia River. These studies are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2. The flood resulting from the breaching of Grand Coulee Dam is considered in lieu of a seismically induced flood.

In 1951, the Seattle District Corps of Engineers made a confidential study (now declassified) to determine artificial flood hydr ographs and the flood profile in the Columbia River Valley resulting from breaching the Grand Coulee Dam by enemy attack. The studies covered a spectrum of conditions in terms of breach openings and hydrologic conditions that might prevail at the time of attack. A postulated seismic failure of Grand Coulee Dam could result in displacement of part of the structure, but it would still act as a restriction or weir and minimize the hydraulic failure. For this re ason, the explosion-i nduced artificial flood represents an upper limit to se ismically induced failures. The failure of Grand Coulee Dam would initiate a catastrophic flood, which woul d be augmented by the failure of the earth portions of downstream dams and subsequent release of the storage pools.

Figure 2.4-5 shows water surface profiles for RM 323 to RM 358 for various river flows, including Artificial Flood No. 1. This flood provides a "limiting case" assessment of the conservatism of CGS

elevation. This flood would have an outfall peak of 8,800,000 ft 3/sec at Grand Coulee Dam at the moment of breaching and a peak discharge at RM 338 (Richl and) of 4,800,000 ft 3/sec.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-10 A base flow of 50,000 ft 3/sec was assumed above the mout h of the Snake for this flood (Reference 2.4-12). An arbitrarily assumed dramatic failure of Arrow and/or Mica Dams in Canada could result in greater releases of storage in terms of volume than that fr om the Grand Coulee Dam, but the effects of such postulated releases are mitigated by a combination of valley storage and critical (flow limiting) valley cross sections. The Corps of Engineers states (Reference 2.4-13) that the river channel restrictions at Trail, British Columbia, would restrict river flow to about 3.1 x 10 6 cfs, regardless of the postulated dam failure. A major failure upstream would result in this maximum flow for many days causing overtopping of Grand Coulee Dam. An analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reference 2.4-14) concluded that overtopping which might result from the failure of upstr eam dams will not cause failure of either the Grand Coulee Dam or the Forebay Dam.

Various studies (References 2.4-12 , 2.4-15 , 2.4-16 and 2.4-17) made by the Corps of Engineers, and others, since 1951 have considered that breaching of Grand Coulee Dam would represent the worst catastrophic event for downstream Columbia River occupants.

Although these studies be ar no relationship to flooding from natural causes, they have been used as the basis for a very c onservative, limiti ng case approach.

Figure 2.4-5 shows water surface profiles for RM 323 to RM 395 for artificial and real stage flows, one of which corresponds to Artificial Flood No. 1 noted earlie r, which has been established (Reference 2.4-18) as conservative (limiting case) criteria for Co lumbia River flooding. Since the base flow used to develop these curves was 50,000 ft 3/sec, an additional 570,000 ft 3/sec is added to account for simultaneous occurrence of the regulated SPF.

2.4.4.1 Dam Failu re Permutations

The effect of potential dam failure on the water levels at the site is determined using the following assumptions:

a. The Columbia River is at flood stage, with a SPF (570,000 ft 3/sec regulated);

b. The reservoirs in each storage pool are full;

c. A massive hydraulic failure occurs at Grand Coulee Dam, releasing 8,800,000 ft 3/sec; d. Following the above assumed failure, a ll downstream dams between CGS site and Grand Coulee Dam suffer some degree of failure and release their storage reservoirs to the flood. [The result of a stability analysis (Reference 2.4-15) showed that all mass conc rete portions of the dams will resist sliding and overturning with the possible exception of part of Rock Island Dam.];

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 2.4-11 e. The explosion-induced failure of Grand Coulee Dam represents a more severe failure than any seismi c event because of the failure mechanism;

f. Failure of Arrow and/or Mica Dam could result in gr eater release of storage volume than Grand Coulee Dam; however , the peak flow is limited to 3,100,000 ft 3/sec due to channel restrictions at Trail, British Columbia; and

g. Overtopping of Grand Coulee Dam would occur with failure of Arrow and/or Mica Dams in Canada. The failure of Grand Coulee, as a result of overtopping, is not considered to be a credible event in view of its concrete c onstruction and rock abutments.

2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures

The flood hydrographs developed by the Corps of Engineers are based on the results of extensive studies of the ph ysical characteri stics of the flood route (References 2.4-12 and 2.4-15). Subsequent studies made by the Co rps of Engineers ver ify these results (Reference 2.4-17). Water levels following such a flood would depend on the status of reservoir storage upstr eam from Grand Coulee Dam but, w ithout regulation of some dams, would approximate the natural seasonal flow conditions.

2.4.4.3 Water Level at Plant Site

The water elevations associated with lim iting case flood (LCF) levels are shown in Figure 2.4-5. RM 350 provides the control for back water flow to the plant area which is sheltered by higher ground eas t of WNP-1 and WNP-4.

Elevation at RM 350 (dam breach flood = 422 ft msl 4,800,000 ft 3/sec plus SPF, 570,000 ft 3/sec)

Allowance for simultaneous wind and wave action + 2 ft Elevation: 424 ft msl=LCF An adequate margin exists between the resulta nt flood elevation and th e plant elevation of 441 ft msl.

2.4.5 PROBABLE

MAXIMUM SU RGE AND SEICHE FLOODING

The location of the CGS site is not close to any water body whic h experiences seiche flooding.

Thus the site is not vulnerable to such flooding.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 2.4-12 2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING The location of the CGS site is in south-central Washington and it is not adjacent to any coastal area. It is not, therefore, vulnerable to tsunami flooding.

2.4.7 ICE EFFECTS Historically, the Columbia River has never experienced complete flow stoppage or significant flooding due to ice blockage. Periodic ice blocking has caused reduced flows and limited flooding for only relatively s hort periods of time.

The most significant icing in recent recorded history occurred during the winter of 1936-37 prior to the construction of the

upstream regulating dams. A relatively thick sheet of ice form ed across the river. The minimum flow recorded near the Priest Rapids Dam site during this winter was 20,000 cfs. However, the ice forming on the river was caused primarily by the low flow rather than the reverse. The deltaic mouths of many of the tributaries to the Columbia River are frequently blocked by ice causing backup of flood waters.

No instance of complete stoppage is known to have occurred.

Ice blockage is most likely to occur when water temperatures are already low, when flows are small, and when a significant cold spell occurs. With the completion of Grand Coulee and other dams on the Columbia River main stream , the seasonal temperature and flow cycles have drastically changed. These changes will further aid to reduce the intensity and timing of the conditions which may contribute to potential ic e blockage and flooding situations. Also average river flow rates, duri ng the winter months, have been increased significantly. The water temperatures have shown a shift in tim e such that the peak temperatures occur 30-45 days later than formerly. In addition, the low extreme temperatures measured have risen over the years.

The long term trends of temp eratures in the Columbia Ri ver been studied (Reference 2.4-19) using a 37 year record of measured temperatur es. The trends for the maximum, average and minimum temperatur es are shown in Figure 2.4-12. The erection of dams on the upper Columbia River has caused the extreme high a nd low river temperatur es measured at Rock Island Dam (Columbia RM 453, 101 miles above the CGS site) to converge toward the average. Winter water temperatures are c onsiderably warmer and summer temperatures cooler with a slightly lowe red average of less than 1

°F occurring during the 37 years.

On the basis of these studies and the recorded observation of 25 years of operation of the Hanford plutonium production plant s, it is concluded t hat the potential for ice blockage or the combination of blockage and flooding behind i ce dams is so low as to be considered insignificant. The erection of Mica, Arrow, and Libby Dams in the Columbia River Basin headwaters is expected to further raise winter water flows and also to increase winter water temperatures somewhat.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 2.4-13 In any event, ice flooding will not effect the capability to shut down the reactor in a safe and orderly manner. Also, the daily fluctuating st age of the river at the intake location will discourage formation of sheet i ce as well as ice jams. Ice fl ows, should they occur, will normally pa ss over intake structure due to relatively high winter discharge in the river.

2.4.8 COOLING

WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS

There are no cooling water canals. The two spray ponds located southeast of the reactor building designed as Seis mic Category I structures, have rein forced concrete side walls, and reinforced concrete base mats at el. 420 ft msl. The finished grade at the spray ponds is approximately at el. 434 ft msl a nd have top of wall elev ations of 435 ft ms

l. The spray ponds are the ultimate heat sink for normal re actor cooldown and for emergency cooling.

The spray ponds are a part of the standby service water system which is discussed in Section 9.2.7. See also Section 2.4.11.6.

During normal reactor operation, the cooling water necessary for the plant is supplied from the cooling tower basins.

2.4.9 CHANNEL

DIVERSIONS

The Columbia River flow in the Hanford reach is controlled to a large extent by regulation of the upstream reservoir projects. The riverbed in the vicinity of th e site is well defined and it is very unlikely that the riverbed would be diverted from its present location by natural causes.

Any possible effect on water supply to the ma keup water pump house from riverbed changes would come from extremely slow changes which can be corrected if a nd when they occur.

As discussed in Section 2.4.7 , the river has not frozen over in Hanford reach during at least the past 25 years, and icing on th e river has not been a problem at pump house or outfall structures associated with th e plutonium production plants.

2.4.10 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

The design considerations of sa fety-related facilities to withstand floods and flood waves are described in Section 2.4.2.2. The PMF is discussed in Section 2.4.3.

All safety-related facili ties are housed in Seismic Category I structures protected from flooding and designed to withstand the static and dy namic forces of all postulated floods. Flood considerations are de scribed in Section 3.4 and the design of Seismic Category I structures, for all conditions including flood, is described in Section 3.8.

In the event of a flood at the site, it will be possible to place the plant in a safe shutdown condition.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 2.4-14 All non-safety-related fa cilities with the excepti on of the makeup water pump house, are above the LCF elevation. The flooding of the makeup water pump house would not affect safety-related equipment and woul d not affect the safe shutdown of the plant. The approximate finished grade at all Seismic Category I structures except the spray ponds is at elevation 440 ft msl. The finished grade of the spray ponds is 434 ft msl.

The PMF elevation of the Columbia River (described in Section 2.4.3), at the site, is estimated to be 390 ft msl.

Seismic Category I structures ar e designed to withstand the st atic and dynamic forces which could result from a flood due to a breach of Grand Coulee Dam. Since this represents the LCF, the structures are also considered secure against the forces due to the lower PMF.

The access openings to all seismi c Category I structures are locat ed well above all flood water elevations, including that due to wind and wave action.

2.4.11 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS

As described in Section 2.4.1.1 , plant water needs are supplied th rough an intake structure in the Columbia River. The top of the makeup wa ter intake screens (at RM 352) are set below the water surface elevation that would be associated with the minimum allowable flow (36,000 cfs) at the federally licen sed Priest Rapids Da m (at RM 397). Water levels at the CGS intake are not influenced by backwater from the downstream McNary Dam (RM 292). The Columbia River Basin upstream of CGS has in excess of 35 million acre-ft of usable reservoir storage capacity. Because of this storage and highly regulated ri ver flows, it is improbable that flows below the licensed minimu m will occur. Based on data for 1961 throu gh 1994, 7-day low flow with a recurrence in terval of 100 years has been estimated at 44,500 cfs.

Even if some event (e.g., very severe dr ought) caused the makeup water system to be inoperable, the loss of water would not compromise the safe s hutdown of the plant. As is discussed in Sections 9.2.5 and 9.2.7 , shutdown cooling water is supplied by the ultimate heat sink which contains a 30-day supply of water in two spray ponds. The only scenario in which the makeup water pump house is called on to supply water in an emergency situation is when a tornado removes a significant quantity of spray pond water (see Section 9.2.5.3). Therefore, the low river water condition is not a situation re quiring safety-related fe atures and procedures.

2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Streams

Reservoir projects on the Columb ia River Basin upstream of th e proposed site have a total usable storage capacity in excess of 35 million acre-ft. This capacity is sufficient to maintain a flow in the Columbia River, at the proximity of CGS, of 36,000 ft 3/sec for over 1 year with absolutely no inflow from other s ources. Because of this regul ation, the anticipated minimum C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-15 and maximum monthly mean flow rate s will be 60,00 0 and 260,000 ft 3/sec in the vicinity of the site. It is improbable that minimum flows below that administratively set for dam operation (36,000 ft 3/sec) will occur due to drought conditions.

Columbia River st orage measurements have been extrapolated down to 25,000 cfs and are shown in Figure 2.4-13. The river elevation at RM 352, site of the CGS makeup water pump house, is 341.73 ft msl and has a corresponding flow of 36,000 ft 3/sec. 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiche s, or Tsunami There exists no possibility of lo w water conditions resulting from meteorological or geoseismic generated surges, seiches, or tsunami unless such natural phenom ena effected rapid closure of the Priest Rapids Dam, which is located 45 miles upstream fr om the proposed site. Rapid closure of the dam would cause a negative surge to be generated downstream.

A complete stoppage of flow is an unlikely e vent because of the redundant equipment and

operational procedure in place at the dam. Provisions to guard against an accidental shut off of Priest Rapids Dam include:

a. A gate actuation button in the control room of the Dam which is used to maintain at least minimum licensed flow from the facility in th e event of one or more turbine shutdowns.

b. Independent motors on each gate which have redundant wiring and power supplies.

c. Electrical heating on four of the gat es to prevent ice buildup which might interfere with gate operation.

d. Multiple offsite power sources in additi on to an on-site diesel generator power backup for gate operation.

In the event of a rapid and complete stoppage of flow over Priest Rapids Dam the effect of the negative surge would pass the site in a few hours. Since the Priest Rapids Dam is a run of the river dam with low storage capacity, it is unlikel y that its closure can restrict th e Columbia River flow for a significant period of time before being topped.

2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water

Historical records of the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station (RM 394.5) located 2.6 miles

downstream from Priest R apids Dam show low daily averaged flows of 20,000 ft 3/sec (January 31, 1937) and low monthly averaged flows of 20,900 ft 3/sec (February 1937). An instantaneous low flow of 4120 ft 3/sec occurred February 10, 1932, due to activit ies connected with dam regulation of the rive r near Wenatchee, Washington, be fore construction of Priest C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-16 Rapids Dam. After completion of the Dam in 1956, the minimum flow rate of the Columbia River at RM 352, approximate location of the CGS makeup water pump house site, is 36,000 ft 3/sec. The flow is maintained by the Grant County PUD as operator of the Priest Rapids Dam (RM 397) under FPC license which states:

"The licenses shall so regulate the flow from the Project 2114 that it will not result in flows of less than 36,000 cfs of water at the Hanford Works of the Atomic Energy Commission except when conditions are beyond the licensee's control."

In eighteen years of operation the flow has not dropped below the specified minimum.

The annual average flow of the Co lumbia River below Priest Rapi ds Dam is in the range of 115,000 cfs. The effect of us e of upstream water for irrigat ion development on the stream flow has been taken into account and the modified me an monthly discharge vari ations for the period 1928-58 are shown in Table 2.4-4 and Figure 2.4-14. The discharge for the base period of 1929-58 was adjusted to reflect 1970 levels of water utilization, including water consumption due to activities of fl ood control, power genera tion and irrigation.

Figure 2.4-15 shows the exceedance frequency for annual low flows for the period 1929 through 1958 with 1970 conditions measured at the gauging station (RM 394.5) immediately below Pr iest Rapids Dam.

Because of the flow regulation on the Columbia River, the anticipated minimum and maximum monthly mean flow rates will approximate 60,000 and 260,000 cfs in the vicinity of the CGS site. The variations of the rive r flow in this reach are due not only to seasonal fluctuations, but also to the daily regulation of the power produci ng Priest Rapids Dam. Flow rates during the late summer, fall and winter may vary from a low of 36,000 cfs to 160,000 cfs each day.

The dependable yield for flows in the Columbia River below Priest Rapi ds Dam for periods of one year through 10 years, as well as the 30-year period 1929-58 is illustrated in Table 2.4-5. The flow duration curve resulting from a plot of Table 2.4-4 is shown by Figure 2.4-14 (Reference 2.4-20). This figure illustrate s the percentage of time equaled or exceeded for different amounts of flows below Priest Rapi ds Dam on a monthly and on an annual basis.

2.4.11.4 Future Controls

Flows in the Columbia River at Hanford are required to be maintained above 36,000 ft 3/sec. This is the licensed minimum flow of Priest Rapids Dam and, as such, is a parameter closely monitored and controlled by the Grant Co unty PUD. The Stat e of Washington has administratively set higher average daily minimum flows (greater than 40,000 ft 3/sec) and will attempt to have the FERC li censes for the dams modified to insure the minimums (Reference 2.4-21).

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 LDCN-04-052 2.4-17 2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements

All cooling water is supplied to the plant cooling towers via the circulating water system, the plant service water system, or the standby se rvice water system described in Sections 9.2.1.2 and 10.4.5. In the event of an incident rendering th e cooling towers inoper ative, cooling water is supplied from the spray ponds by the sta ndby service water system, described in Section

9.2.7. These

are closed loop systems and the only water loss is through evaporative cooling.

Makeup to the plant cooling towers and spray ponds comes from the Columbia River. Should this capability be lost, the cooling load is taken over by th e spray ponds. These ponds have sufficient capacity to provide shutdown cooling water for 30 days without makeup. Other sources of water are availa ble to provide makeup after the initial 30-day period (see Section 9.2.5). Therefore, variation in river flow will not have any a dverse affect on the capability to shut down the reactor in a safe and orderly manner.

2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements

At the minimum river flow of 36,000 ft 3/sec described in Section 2.4.11.3 , there is still sufficient submergence at the makeup water pu mps to provide full makeup water requirements at full power operation. Sump level indication and low level alarms are provided in the main control room. Should the sump water elevation fall below the minimum submergence level for the makeup pumps, due either to low river flow or blocked inlets, the plant would be shut down if the situation could not be readily corre cted with the safety-related standby service water coming from the spray ponds.

Section 9.2.5 discusses the design bases used in desi gning the two spray ponds which serve as the ultimate heat sink for CGS. Design of the CGS ultimate h eat sink is in compliance with the guidelines presented in Regulat ory Guide 1.27 Rev. 1, "Ultimat e Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants," dated March 1974. Th e CGS spray ponds serve as th e suction source and discharge point for the standby service water system.

This system is discussed in Section 9.2.7 and identifies the uses and quantities of wate r drawn from the ultimate heat sink.

2.4.12 DISPERSION, DILUTION, A ND TRAVEL TIMES OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS IN SURFACE WATERS Small amounts of liquid radioactiv e wastes, processed within the plant and containing traces of radioactive nuclides, are discharged ultimately to the Columbia River via the plant blowdown line as discussed in Section 11.2.2.2.6 (see Figure 2.4-16

). In the vicinity of CGS, the Columbia River is wide, relatively shallow, and fast flowing.

Field measurements have shown river velocities near the CGS discharge to be about 3 ft/sec for minimum flows (Reference 2.4-22) and 4.5 ft/sec for aver age flows (Reference 2.4-23). At the point of discharge the river is about 5 ft deep at minimum flow. Based on a dye dispersion study (Reference 2.4-22), the local eddy diffusivity at low flow has been conservatively estimated to C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December2005 2.4-18 be 4 ft 2/sec (Reference 2.4-24). With a combination of minimum river flow and maximum blowdown, it is estimated that an effluent woul d be diluted by a fact or of about 60 at a distance of 300 ft and a fa ctor of 200 at 3000 ft. Dilution factors and travel times for calculating doses to downstream water users are di scussed in the CGS Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).

Downstream surface water us ers are listed in Section 2.4.1.2. The travel time to the nearest withdrawal which could be affect ed by an accidental release is approximately 1 hr. At that point a radioactive release would be essentially completely mixed with the river resulting in a dilution factor of 1:200,000. It is concluded that water users ar e sufficiently removed from the release point, and the Columbia Ri ver is sufficiently di spersive to preclude adverse impacts due to accidental releases. The di spersion characteristics of the river and the effects of routine releases are discus sed in Sections 5.1 and 5.

2 of the Environmental Re port - Operating License Stage.

2.4.13 GROUNDWATER

2.4.13.1 Descripti on and Onsite Use

Subsurface soil conditions, across the site , have been class ified as follows:

a. Loose to medium dense, fine to coarse sand with scattered gr avel (glaciofluvial sediments).

b. Very dense, sandy gravel with interbedded sandy and silty layers (Ringold Formation, Middle Member).

c. Very dense, interbedded layers of sandy gravel silt and soft sandstone (Ringold Formation, Lower Member).

d. Basalt bedrock which forms the bedrock beneath the area.

The lithologic character and water bearing properties of the geologic units occurring in the Hanford region are summarized in Table 2.4-6. In general, groundwater in the surficial sediments occurs unconfined, alt hough locally confined zones exist. Water in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under confined conditions. Occasionally, the lower zone of the Ringold Formation occurs as a confined aquifer, separated from the overlying unconfined aquifer by thick clay beds which possess a distinct hydraulic potential.

The unconfined aquifer consists of both glaciofluvial sand and gravel deposits and the Ringold silts, clays, and gravels. Since these materials are very heterogeneous, often greater lithologic differences occur within a given bed than between beds. In the vi cinity of CGS the water table is below the top of the Ringold Formation (see Figures 2.5-64 and 2.5-65). The unconfined C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-19 aquifer bottom is the basalt bedrock in some areas and silt/clay zones of the Ringold Formation in other areas. Clearly the bottom of the unconfined aquifer is not a continuous lithologic surface.

The Hanford Reservation contains over 2200 wells cons tructed from pre-Hanford work days to the present). Approximately 600 of these wells are used for gr oundwater monitoring (Reference 2.4-25). Figure 2.4-17 identifies the well locations in the Hanford Reservation as of September 1975.

Figure 2.4-18 shows the December 1975 groundw ater contour map. In general, the groundwater gradient resulting from groundwater flowing under the Reservation is the highest in the southwestern area toward Rattlesnake Mountain, and slopes toward the Hanford 200 Areas near the center of the reservation. From the 200 Areas the general slope in the gradient is toward northeast and southeast.

A groundwater contour map base d on the potential construction of the Ben Franklin Dam at approximately RM 348 is illustrated by Figure 2.4-19. The CGS design basis groundwater level is based on the possible construction of the Ben Franklin Dam and is taken to be 420 ft msl, whereas the most recent study indi cates that the water table would be about 405 ft msl (Reference 2.4-26). The feasibility of constructin g Ben Franklin Hydroelectric Dam has been extensively studied.

Its proposal was strongly c ontested by local groups and individuals concerned with environmental protection and preservation. Additionally, the matter of the impact such a facility would have on the DOE Hanford Reservation was believed by some to preclude its construction. Finally, the cost

/benefit ratio was belie ved by many to be too low to make the project viabl

e. The combination of the unresolved impediments to the project has effectively, though not conclusively, relegated it to a very low priority status.

Planning studies for the project by the Corp s of Engineers were suspended in 1969 and reinitiated in October 1979 as part of the development of a m anagement plan for the Hanford reach. The most recent studies were terminated in November 1981.

Impermeable groundwater boundaries are the Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge on the west and southwest sides of the Ha nford Reservation. Gable Mountain and Gable Butte also impede the groundwater flow, as well as other sma ll areas of basalt outcrop above the water table. The Yakima River recharges the unconfined aquifer alon g its reach from horn Rapids to Richland. The Columbia River fo rms a hydraulic potential boundary which is a discharge boundary for the aquifer.

The major source of natural recharge is precipitation on Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge.

Minor changes would be expecte d in the groundwater elevati ons during the summer months because of the charging stage of the Columbia River, which hi storically reac hes peak flood stage in June. Because CGS is located about three miles from the river and because of the permeability characteristics and enormous volume of the Ringold Formation, there is a substantial time lag in changing wa ter levels.

For the same reasons, the range in water table fluctuations is very small.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-20 Natural recharge due to precip itation over the lowlands of th e Hanford Reservation is not measurable as the evaporation potential during the summer mont hs greatly exceeds total precipitation. Data on migration of moisture from natural preci pitation in deep soils (below 30 ft) show movement rates less than 1/2-in./y r at one measurement site (References 2.4-27 , 2.4-28 and 2.4-29). The major artificial recharge of ground water to the unconfined aquifer occurs near the Hanford 200 East and 200 West Areas. The la rge volume of process water (1.35 x 1011 gal) discharged to ground during 1944-1973 has caused the formation of significant groundwater mounds in the water table (Figures 2.4-20 and 2.4-26). Other local groundwater mounds formerly existed along the Columbia Ri ver. The present Hanford 100-N Area mound is the only one of these remaining. A minor recharge mound also exists at the Hanford 300 Area.

The unconfined aquifer is charac terized by its hydraulic conductiv ity, the storage coefficient, and the effective porosity. The hydraulic conductivity relates th e water flow quantity to the hydraulic potential gradient, while the effective porosity gives the fr action of por ous media volume that is available to transmit ground water flow. The storage coefficient relates a change in the water table elevation to a change in the volume of water contained in the aquifer per unit horizontal area. In the limit of no delayed yield, the storage coefficient is equal to the effective porosity of the soil through which the water table moves. These parameters vary widely over the H anford Reservation.

Qualitatively the hydraulic conducti vity, storage coefficient, and e ffective porosity distributions are a function of the different geologic formati ons in the unconfined aquifer. Ancestral Columbia River channels which incised in the Ringold Formation are now filled with more permeable glaciofluvial sedime nts. These channels have been identified extending eastward along the northern and southern flanks of Gable Mountain and extending southeastward from the 200 East Area to th e Columbia River (see Figure 2.4-21

). These permeable channels are reflected in the groundwater flow pattern of the region.

Quantitative measurements of the hydraulic conductivity of the unconfined aquifer have been made on the Hanford Reservation using a variety of technique s: pumping tests, specific capacity tests, and tracer tests. The most common method has been the pumping tests. Values obtained for the Ringold Formation range between 10 to 650 ft/day with a median of about 130 ft/day. In sharp contrast ar e the very large hydraulic c onductivities of glaciofluvial sediments, ranging from 1, 200 to 12,000 ft/day (Reference 2.4-30).

The storage coefficient is much more difficult to measure in the field and estimates are, therefore, less common. For th e unconfined aquifer, estimates of the storage coefficient have ranged from 0.01 to 0.1 (Reference 2.4-30). An areal estimate of 0.11 has been provided for the 200 West Area based on the growth of groundwater mounds (References 2.4-30 and 2.4-31). The median specific yield (effective por osity) has been estimated by various researchers at Hanford to range from 4.8% to 11%; most commonly it is assumed to be 10%

(Reference 2.4-32).

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-21 The unconfined groundwater aquife r is characterized by the contour map of the hydraulic potential or water table. The map for December 1975 appears in Figure 2.4-18. The depth to the water table varies gr eatly from place to place, depending chiefly on local topography which ranges from less than 1 to more than 300 ft below the land surf ace. Beneath most of the Hanford 200 Area disposal sites the depth of the water table average s about 250 ft. The current estimate of the maximum saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer is approximately 230 ft.

The chemical quality of the groundwater in the unconfined aquifer is measured at seven locations. Sodium, calcium, and sulfate ions are measured as well as pH. Chromium and fluoride ions associated with fuel manufac turing operations are anal yzed from Hanford 300 Area wells. Nitrate ion, which is a waste product from the manufacturing and chemical separation operations, is monitored over the entire Hanford Reserv ation. Annual maps of the nitrate ion concentration near the surf ace of the unconfined aquifer are published (Reference 2.4-33). The map showing nitrate concentration for December 1975 appears in Figure 2.4-22.

The radiological status of th e groundwater near the surfac e of the unconfined aquifer is monitored regularly (Reference 2.4-34) and reported annually. Plots of gross beta (ruthenium) plumes and the tritium plumes are shown in Figures 2.4-23 and 2.4-24 for December 1975 (Reference 2.4-33). Since the nitrate ion is not adsorbed in the soil it can be used as a tracer for groundwater movement. The extent of move ment of waste water containing radionuclides can thus be plotted. Respecti ve tritium and nitrate ion concen trations under the CGS site are currently ranging from 30 to 300 pci/ml and 4.5 to 45 mg/l depending on the sampling location. Concentration guide for drinking water is 3,000 pci/ml for tritium and the recommended drinking water standard is 10 mg/l for nitrate ions.

Gross beta concentrations do not extend to the site.

From the research that has been done to date, it appears that there are a number of confined aquifers underlying the Hanford Re servation. Relatively im permeable confining beds commonly include the individual basalt flows and the silts and clays of the lower part of the Ringold Formation.

Within the basalt sequence, groundwater is transmitted primarily in the interflow zones, either in sedimentary beds or in th e scoria and breccia zones forming the tops and bottoms of the flows (References 2.4-35 and 2.4-36). Basalt flows in the Pa sco Basin have been eroded particularly in the anticlinal ri dges. In some locations th e basalts are highly jointed and contain breccia, pillow and pl agonite complexes through wh ich groundwater can move.

Consequently, hydraulic potential differences between water bear ing zones in the upper part of the basalt sequence are small o ver hundreds of feet of depth. The lowermost Ringold Formation silts and clays are of variable thickness. Distinct hydraulic potential differences have been observed between aquifers below th e silts and clays and the unconfined aquifer.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-22 Groundwater flow in the uppermost confined aquife r is also to the southeast with possible discharge into the Columbia River somewhere below Lake Wallula. However, the flow rates are regarded as quite small due to the low transmissivity range of this water bearing zone. Groundwater in the lower confined aquifers does not appear to cross the major anticlinal divides that define the Pasco Basin.

The piezometric or hydraulic potential map for the confined zones above the basalt (Figure 2.4-25) was based on measurements made in 1970.

In general, the hydraulic potential observed in the confined aquifer zones above th e basalt is greater than in the overlying unconfined aquifer. The main exception is in the vicinity of the Hanford 200 Area recharge mounds which have raised the poten tial in the unconfined aquifer.

One recharge area that has been identified is from the Yakima River at Horn Rapids. The piezometric map in Figure 2.4-25 also suggests rec harge from the upper Cold Creek Valley with flow toward a potential trough under the Columbia River. The Columbia Basin Irrigation Project to the northeast and east, and the Columbia River behi nd Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams to the northwest are other probable rec harge sites in both these areas the basalt is exposed and is covered by pere nnially saturated unconsolidated deposits. A site of possible

minor recharge exists adjacent to Gable Butte and Gable Mountain anticline near the center of the Reservation.

Only 90 wells on the Hanford Reservation have been drilled to basalt. Thus data on the confined aquifers in the basalt flows are limited and more would have to be gathered to fully characterize the confined aquifers.

The plant is located on glacioflu vial outwash sands and gravels which are about 50 ft thick.

Below this layer occurs very de nse gravel. Sandy gravel occu rs in a sequence approximately 200 ft thick which is assumed to be the middle member of the Ringold Formation. The lower member of the Ringold Formation consists of a very compact, in terbedded gravel, sand, silt, and clay and extends down to a depth of about 500-525 ft.

Basaltic bedrock underlies the lower Ringold member, at approximately 550 ft depth.

The water table is about 60 ft below the ground surface level at CGS. The water table elevation is about 378

+4 ft msl and appears to be stable.

The effective bottom of the unconfined aquifer is assumed to be at about 220-260 ft msl at the top of the lower Ringold Formation. Groundwater potentials from the lower Ringold and from the basalt water bearing zones are about 25 ft higher than that of the unconfined aquifer. Test borings down to 925 ft reveal there are water bearing zones in the lower basalt flows and sedimentary interbeds at CGS. Piezometric level in basalt is 10 ft above unconfined wa ter table and hence artesian.

Under the CGS site the unconfined groundwater is moving easterly toward the Co lumbia River, the nearest discharge boun dary. Studies of the uppermost con fined aquifer indicate that the C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-23 potential gradients at the proposed site are oriented in the same general direct ion as those of the unconfined aquifer.

Three water supply wells are located on the site.

Two shallow wells were constructed in the unconfined aquifer (at approximatel y 240 ft deep) and a third well penetrates a confined aquifer in the underlying basalt flows (at approximately 695 ft deep). Norm al water supply is from the river, and the deep well is maintained in the standby mode to provide supplemental makeup water for the potable and demineralized water sy stem as needed. Pump ing capability is about 250 gpm. The two shallow wells were used during construction.

2.4.13.2 Sources

Regional use of the unconfined a quifer occurs at two nearby lo cations. The first is at the DOE's 400 Area located about 3 miles sout hwest of the CGS s ite as shown in Figure 2.1-3. Groundwater to this construction site is supplied from two wells and is used for sanitary and operation purposes. Maximum expected usage rate is between 2 million and 2.5 million gal/month. No data is available on drawdown tests performe d on the FFTF water supply wells 699-SO-7 and SO-8. The second location of ground water use is the WNP-1/4 site about 1 mile east of CGS. Wate r is drawn from two wells fo r sanitary and potable water requirements.

Usage rate is approx imately 250,000 gal/month.

The two onsite wells which drew from the unc onfined aquifer (699-13-1A and 1B) are 234 and 244 ft deep. Drawdown tests for each well showed 22 and 91 ft of drawdown respectively, at pumping rates of 250 gpm and test durations of about 25 hr. These well s are no longer used. The third well (695 ft deep) is sealed from the unconfined aquifer and draws from confined

water in the basalt. Drawdown on this well was 163 ft at a pumping rate of 275 gpm with a test duration of 25 hr.

Water table contours in the vici nity of CGS can be seen in Figure 2.4-26. The aquifer is assumed to be isotropic, ther efore, flow occurs along instantane ous streamlines perpendicular to the equipotential contours. The groundwater flow is toward the discharge boundary at the Columbia River to the east of the site. The hydraulic potential gradient in this area is about 8-10 ft/mile in the unconfined aquife

r. As described in Section 2.4.13.1 , recharge and discharge of riverbank storage occur along the Columbia River with daily fluctuations superimposed on the seasonal varia tions in river stage. Hydrographs of wells in the vicinity of the plant site (Figure 2.4-27) show that riverbank storage is not detectable even in years of extreme spring runoff at the two wells that are about one m ile from the riverbank. Thus no seasonal reversability of the gradients driving the groundwater flo w occurs. In other areas of the Hanford Reservation, the seasonal fluctuati ons of groundwater le vels from riverbank recharge can be detected 3-4 miles inland from the riverbank.

During early studies of groundwater in the area (References 2.4-37 and 2.4-31) little information was obtained on specific features at the plant site. The water table for 1944 C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-24 (pre-Hanford Work conditions) was interpolat ed using 1948-1952 observation well data (Figure 2.4-20) and showed a water table elevation of about 370 ft msl under the site. The potential gradient was interpolated (References 2.4-31 and 2.4-38) to be about 5-6 ft per mile toward the Co lumbia River.

The earliest wells in the vicinity (699-2-3 and 17-5) were drilled in 1950.

Their hydrographs, presented in Figure 2.4-27 , show the gradual rise of the water table to approximately 15 ft above pre-Hanford Operations elevations. The peak rise in 1972 for well 699-2-3 shown on Figure 2.4-27 is believed to be a measurement error. Other wells were drilled in 1958, 1961, 1962 and 1966. Their hydrographs appear in Figure 2.4-27. Wells 669-14-E6-T and E5T also show the gradual rise of the water table at their respective loca tions. Smaller apparent water table changes at the site between 1944- 1974 (see 2.4.13.1 and Figure 2.4-27 , well 699-14-E6-T and 699-20-E5-T) indicated a zone of relativel y lower hydraulic conductivity in this area.

Well 699-9-E2 is a deep well perforated in both the unconfined and lower confined aquifer zones. Its hist orical hydrograph (Figure 2.4-27) reflects a composite of confined and unconfined potentials with disc ontinuities caused by sanding in an subsequent maintenance operations. The 1962 peak of the hydrograph of well 699-20-E12 (Figure 2.4-27) is due to the influence of the high confined aqu ifer potential before the installa tion of piezometer tubes in this deep well. The 1972 peak, could be bank rechar ge from the high river stage of that year but the lack of previous res ponse to river stage makes th e measurement suspicious.

Well 699-10-E12, also located within one mile of the river, does not show seasonal bank recharge (Figure 2.4-27

). Over the past two years, a decrease in the rate of rise is evident.

Soil test borings and water supply wells drilled in conjunction w ith the CGS construction site, confirmed the present contouring in terpretation of the water table.

Recent data from boring at WNP-1 and WNP-4 are not reflected in the water table maps shown in Figures 2.4-18 , 2.4-19 , 2.4-26 , and 2.4-25.

The historical well hydrographs for the uppermost confined aquifer in the vicinity of the plant site are given in Figure 2.4-27. Well number 699-20-E12-P shows a rather rapid rise of the confined aquifer potential in 1962-

65. It has been postulated that this rise reflects recharge to the confined zones from irriga tion across the river in the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project.

The hydraul ic potential in the uppe rmost confined aquifer near th e plant site is presently about 390 ft msl, which is about 25 ft higher than the pot ential of the overlyin g unconfined aquifer.

The effects of the groundwater w ithdrawal at the site have been estimated to be local. No drawdown has been detected in the ne arest observation wells , numbers 699-17-5 and 699-9-E2. The latter well is perforated over multiple aquifers so it does not give a representative measurement of the water table elevation. The radi us of influence (d efined to be the radius at which a 0.1 ft draw down exists) of the CGS wells has been estimated to be about 3500-4500 ft. This is based on the ten months of high rate of withdrawal during compaction C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 2.4-25 operations taking into account the ambient water table gradient. The su bsequent reduction in withdrawal flow rate to 25% of the early value would shrink the radius of influence considerably.

There is no groundwater recharge area within the influence of the plant. The 60-ft depth from the land surface to the water table and the arid condition of sediments above the water table make it virtually impossible to detect any r echarge from precipitation over this area.

2.4.13.3 Accidental Effects

An evaluation of a possible radioactive liquid release is postulated due to the rupture of a 700-gal decontamination solution concentrator waste tank within the radwaste building (see Figure 11.2-1). The released effluent was then assumed to reach the soil environment outside the building and to percolate to the water table unimpeded. On entering the groundwater, the postulated radwaste release is dispersed, sorbed, decayed, and diluted along the potential groundwater pathway from the plan t towards the Columbia River.

In the unconfined (water table) aquifer, there are no down gr adient groundwater users between CGS and the Columbia River. However, the construction water needs at WNP-1/4 are supplied by the two deep wells that withdraw groundwat er from the uppermost confined aquifer downgradient from the CGS radwaste building. During operation of WNP-1/4, these wells will be maintained in a standby mode. The uppermost screens in these wells are about 240 ft below the ground surface in the lower Ringold Formation. The effective bottom of the unconfined aquifer is generally assumed to be at the top of the lower Ringold Formation or about 200 ft below the surface. Thus, in all likelihood, any liquid radioactive sp ill to the groundwater beneath the CGS radwaste building would travel through the unconfined aquife r towards the Columbia River. However, fo r conservatism, analyses of postulated radionuclide movement assume that the WNP-1/4 wells draw from th e unconfined aquifer. Th e remainder of this subsection provides estim ates of travel times of critic al radionuclides to move from the postulated spill to receptors and the corresponding concentration reduction factors.

For an assumed one-dimensional groundwater movement, the groundwater tra vel time, t, is the path length, L, divided by the groundwater velocity (seepage velocity), u. The groundwater velocity is the Da rcy (apparent) velocity divide d by the effective porosity, u = Ki/n e, where K is the lateral perme ability (hydraulic conductivit y) of the aquifer, i is the hydraulic gradient, and ne is the effective porosity of the aquifer material.

For computational purposes, a conservative value fo r lateral permeability of 500 ft/day was selected to represent the unc onfined aquifer located in the Ringold Formation beneath CGS (see Figure 2.4-21

). From 2.4.13.1 , effective porosity is taken 0.10. From Figure 2.4-26 , the gradient in the water table aquifer between the plant and the Columbia River is about 8 or 9 ft/mile, and is taken cons ervatively as 10 ft/mile.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-26 Using the above parameter values , groundwater velocities were computed to be 10 ft/day.

With path lengths of 3.4 miles to the river and 1.0 mile to the WNP-1/

4 wells, the respective travel times are estimated to be 5.2 years and 1.5 years.

Generally, the critical radion uclides of concern for a postu lated liquid radwaste spill are 3 H, 90 Sr, and 137 Cs. These three radionuclides are fairly representative in terms of sorption characteristics, of t hose found in liquid radwaste tanks, since tritium does not sorb onto soil particles at all, strontium is an intermediate sorber, and cesium str ongly sorbs to soil particles.

The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, whereas those of 90 S r and 137 C s are 29.0 and 30.1 years, respectively.

The travel time, t i , for a particular radionuclide movi ng through groundwat er depends upon the velocity, u i , of the radionuclide t i = l/u i where the radionuclide velocity is

u i = r f u in which r f is the velocity reduction fa ctor attributable to sorption r = 1/1+b n k fd In this equation, b is the bulk density of the aquifer material, n is the total porosity, and K d is the equilibrium distribution coefficient for a particular radionuclide.

The bulk density and total porosity are furthe r related physically as b = R s (1 - n) where R s is the real specific gravit y or particle density of the solid particles in the aquifer media. The particle density, R s , for Hanford soils is usually taken to be constant at 2.65 gm/cm 3 , (Reference 2.4-39). The bulk density b, of Hanford soils has been determined to range from about 1.5 gm/cm 3 to about 1.75 gm/cm 3 , with a median value of about 1.65 gm/cm 3 , (Reference 2.4-40). For the median value of bulk densit y, the corresponding to tal porosity is about 0.377.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-27 Using the above value for bulk density and total porosity, radionuclide tr a vel time, ti, through the ground w ater beneath WNP

-1/4 can be expressed as

t i = (1 + 4.4 K d) t The following summarizes radionucli d e travel times (in years) to the WNP-1/4 wells (1.0 miles)

and to the C o lumbia River (3.4 miles):

Nuclide Half-life, years K d t i @ 1.0 miles t i @ 3.4 miles 3 H 12.3 0 1.5 5.2 90 Sr 29.0 10 67.0 230.0 137 Cs 30.1 100 660.0 2300.0 The radionuclide concentration at the point of wa ter use will be determ ined by the amount of decay, dispersion, and sorption on the aquifer media. The minimum concentration reduction

factor, CRF min , along the centerline of the contaminant plume from an instantaneous point source is given by (Reference 2.4-41) CRF = C C (KKK)2Vmin oxyz1/2()/4 32 t for an effluent volume, V, with a specific gravity of 1.0 and an initial concentration, C o , released to soil with dispersion coefficients, K x , K y , K z , in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. This expression neglects the phenomena of sorption and decay which will be considered later.

It is generally accept ed that the dispersion coefficien ts are proportional to groundwater velocity for unidirectional flow, i.e.,

Kuxyzxyz,,,, = where x,y,z , are constants called disp ersivities which are a functi on of the nonhomogeneity of the material. The range in dispersivities in homogeneous granular aquifers may approach 1000 cm (33 ft) (Reference 2.4-42). Substituting this relationship into the above expression for concentration reduction, and noting that travel time is determined by pa th length and velocity, results in CRF min = (4L) ()2V3/2xyz1/2 For the conservative condition of x = y = z = 1.0, then C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-28 C R F = (4 L)2V m i n 3/2 The concentration reduction factors at the W N P-1/4 wells and at the bank of the Columbia

River, due only to dispersion, are 9.1 x 1 0 4 and 5.7 x 10 5 , respec t ively, f o r the 700-gal concentrated waste tan

k. When sorption and decay a r e included, the concentration

reduction is given by (Reference 2.4-42) C R F = (4 L)3 / 2 ( )x y z 1/2 2V e t i in which is the radionuclide decay constant defined in terms of the half-life, T1/2, of a particular radionuclide as

= 1n 2 T 1/2 The concentration reduction f a ctor can be expressed as

C R F = C R F (e t )m i n i The exponential term accounts for t h e effects of sorption and decay.

The only effect of sorption on concentration reduction is to increase the t r avel ti m e, t h us allowing more time f o r decay. Concentration reduction factors (CRF) for the radionuclides listed were calculated for path lengths of 1.0 mile (to WNP-1/4 wells) and 3.4 mil e s (to Columbia River):

Nuclide CRF (1.0 mile)

CRF (3.4 mile) 3 H 1.0 x 10 5 7.7 x 10 5 90 Sr 4.5 x 10 5 1.8 x 10 8 137 Cs 3.7 x 10 11 5.8 x 19 28 The above factors, derived thro ugh the application of conserva tive parameters, are used in Section 15.7.3 to evaluate concentrations offsite. The consideration of the WNP-1/4 wells is especially conservative. Gr oundwater contaminati on from the 200 Areas which reached CGS over six years ago (see Section 2.4.13.1) has not been detected at WN P-1/4. This substantiates that the WNP-1/4 wells do not draw from the unconfined aqu ifer or, alternatively, the hydraulic conductivities are much less than assumed.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 59 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2007 LDCN-06-000 2.4-29 It should also be noted that if Ben Franklin Da m were ever constructe d, the concentration reduction factors at the river bank would be even larger than those noted above. This would be true, because the groundwater gradient (thus, the groundwater velocity) would be decreased as shown in Figure 2.4-19.

2.4.13.4 Monitoring or Safeguard Requirements

Plant water systems result in releases to the ground at a number of locations. Sanitary wastewater is routed to a cen tral treatment system comprised of lined aeration lagoons and stabilization ponds. This treatm ent plant also receives wastes from the Plant Support Facility, WNP-1 and WNP-4, and the DOE's 400 Area.

Periodically the treated effluent is discharged to percolation beds. As discussed in Section 2.4.2.3 , the storm water drainage system discharges to an unlined depression northeast of the plant (see additiona l description in Section 9.3.3.2.3.1). Such sources as water treatment filter backwashes, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) air wash units, and some building sumps and floor drains (see Section 9.3.3.2.3) also contribute to flow in the storm water system. Periodic test ing and flushing of the fire pr otection system and cleaning of the cooling towers and standby service water ponds result in locali zed discharges of water to the ground.

Monitoring of groundwater and pl ant-related discharges to ground is perfor med as described in the ODCM.

2.4.13.5 Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings

CGS does not employ permanent dewatering syst ems. Site groundwater conditions are presented in Section 2.5.4.6 and the design bases for subsurfa ce hydrostatic load ings are given in Section 3.4.

The design-basis groundwater elevation used fo r subsurface hydrostatic loadings is 420 ft msl and was predicated on the possibl e future construction of Ben Fr anklin Dam at RM 348. As noted in Section 2.4.13.1 , planning for the dam has been terminated. The same section notes that the water table beneath CGS would rise to less than 405 ft msl if the da m were to be completed. The actual wa ter table beneath the project is about 385 ft msl (see Sections 2.4.13.1 and 2.5.4.6). The design-basis groundwater le vel is adequate to account for seepage from the ultimate heat sink spray ponds or the rupture of any Seismic Category I or nonseismic pipe. As discussed in Section 3.8.4.1.5 , the two, 250-ft 2 reinforced-concrete spray ponds are designed to Seismic Category I requirements and are designed to mitigate any possible water leakage. The bo ttom of the spray ponds are at 417 ft msl and the ponds are designed for external hydrostatic loading to 420 ft msl. The maximum combined leakage from the two ponds during the initial filling sequences was 120 gpm. It may be inferred from previous studies (Reference 2.4-7) that continued leakage cannot affect the groundwater level C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-30 beneath the ponds or other safety-related structures, th e closest of which (500+ ft away) is the diesel generator building with a foundation at 434 ft msl. These early CGS hydrologic studies evaluated the effect of cooling pond leakage and cooling tower blowdown at the project site.

Equivalent leakage/discharge rate s used in these studies were ve ry much greater than leakage from the spray ponds. For example, the con tinuous discharge of 2700 gpm of cooling tower blowdown to the depression just east of CGS wa s estimated to raise the water table about 20 ft beneath the point of discharge (Reference 2.4-7). Based on these previous studies, it can be concluded that the minimal amount of spray pond leakage will have no influence on the design-basis groundwater el evation of 420 ft msl.

With respect to a pipe break, th e 144-in. circulating water system pipe on the discharge side of the condenser would produce the maximum release of water. The maximum quantity of water released from such a rupture is 199,180 ft

3. This discharge would have a negligible (less than 1 in.) and temporary effect on the groundwater level. Failure of the pipe at its closest proximity to a safety-related bu ilding may result in temporary satu ration of the backfill. This material has been recompacted to a minimum relative density of 75% and an average relative density of 85%. As discussed in Section 2.5.4.8, these densities are not susceptible to liquefaction for motions associat ed with the safe shutdown ear thquake, and as discussed in Section 2.5.4.10 , temporary saturation would not significantly reduce the bearing capacity of the densely compacted backfill.

A continuous but undetected l eak from any major pipe would not influence the groundwater leve l enough to affect plant struct ures. This may be deduced from the time factors and water table rises predicted from a num ber of scenarios in the above mentioned hydrologic studies (Reference 2.4-7).

2.4.14 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS

The worst hydrological condition, as discussed in this section, is a flood caused by a postulated PMP event. This flood does not create an adverse hydrological condition on safety-related equipment. Emergency fl ood protection procedures are therefore unnecessary.

2.4.15 REFERENCES

2.4-1 Woods, V. W., "A Summary of Columbia River Hydrographic Information Pertinent to Hanford Works - 1894 to 1954," HW-30347, February 24, 1954.

2.4-2 Memorandum Report Colu mbia River Basin Lower Co lumbia River Standard Project Flood and Probable Maximum Flood , U.S. Army Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR, September 1969.

2.4-3 "Probable Maximum Precipitation," Hydrometeorological Report No. 43 , U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), Northwest States, 1966.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-31 2.4-4 Corps of Engineers, Nort h Pacific Division, letter to V. C. St. Clair, Atomic Energy Commission, Richland O ffice, November 2, 1970.

2.4-5 Corps of Engineers, Nort h Pacific Division, letter to M. J. Hroncich, Burns and Roe Inc., February 7, 1972.

2.4-6 Corps of Engineers, Nort h Pacific Division, letter to M. J. Hroncich, Burns and Roe Inc., February 14, 1972.

2.4-7 Final Report on Hydrology Studies of the WNP-2 Site , July 1971, and Addendum I to Final Report on Hydrology Studies of the WNP-2 Site, by Battelle Northwest, Richland, WA, to Burns and Roe Inc., July 1971.

2.4-8 Design of Small Dams , U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1977.

2.4-9 "Water Surface Profiles," Vol. 6 Hy drologic Engineering Methods for Water Resources Development , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, July 1975.

2.4-10 Shore Protection Manual , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1975.

2.4-11 "Wave Runup and Wind Setup on Reservoir Embankments," Engineering Technical Letter No. 1110-2-221, Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers, November 29, 1976.

2.4-12 Artificial Flood Possib ilities on the Columbia River , Corps of Engineers, Washington District, Washingt on, DC, November 20, 1951.

2.4-13 Rockwood, D. M, letter to R. Ch itwood, "Preliminary Estimate of Upstream Dam Failure Effects," June 21, 1972.

2.4-14 Arthur, H. G., letter to J. J. Stein, "Behav ior of Grand Coulee Dam and Forebay Dam When Subjected to Overtopping," August 1, 1972.

2.4-15 Artificial Flood Considera tions for Columbia River Dams , Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Distri ct, Seattle, WA, August 1963.

2.4-16 Eugene Isaacson, Ca lculations of Severe Fl oods in a Developed River , January 1965.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-32 2.4-17 Artificial Flood Consider ations for Columbia River Below Chief Joseph Dam to Richland , Washington, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers North Pacific Division, Portland, OR, January 1968.

2.4-18 Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licen sing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in the matter of Portland General Electric Company, Pacific Power and Light Company, City of Eugene, OR, Trojan Nuclear Plant, Docket No. 50-344, pp. 11-12.

2.4-19 Jaske, R. T., and S ynoground, M. O., "Effect of Hanford Plant Operation on the Temperature of the Columbia River, 1964-Present," BNWL-1345, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1970.

2.4-20 "Columbia North Pacific Region Wa ter Resources Appendix V," Volume 1, March 1969.

2.4-21 Columbia River Instream Resource Protection Program, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, June 1980, pp. 61-67.

2.4-22 Vertical Mixing Characteristics of the Columbia River at RM 351.75, WNP No. 2 , Battelle Pacific Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 16, 1972.

2.4-23 Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4 August 1978 Through March 1980 , WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 7, Beack Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June 1980.

2.4-24 Kannberg, L. D., Mathematical Modeling of the WNP-1/2/4 Cooling Tower Blowdown Plumes, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1980.

2.4-25 McGhan, V. L., and Damschen, D. W., Hanford Wells, PNL-2894, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratorie s, Richland, WA, May 1979.

2.4-26 Harty, Harold, "The Effects of Ben Franklin Dam on the Hanford Site,"

PNL-2821, Battelle, Pacific Northw est Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1979.

2.4-27 Bierschenk, W. H., "Aquifer Characteristics and Ground Water Movement at Hanford," HW-60601, June 9, 1959.

2.4-28 Bierschenk, W. H., "Hydraulic Characteristics of Hanford Aquifers," HW-48916, Marc h 3, 1957.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-33 2.4-29 Honstead, J. F., McConiga, M.

W., and Raymond, J. R., "Gable Mountain Ground Water Tests," HW-34532, January 21, 1955.

2.4-30 Gephart, R. E., Spane, F. A., Leonhart, L. S., Palom bo, D. A., Strait, S. R., "Pasco Basin Hydrology", Hydrologic Studies within the Columbia Plateau, Washington - An Integration of Current Knowledge, (RNO-BWI-ST-5), by Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, WA, October 1979.

2.4-31 Newcomb, R. C., Stra nd, J. R. and Frank, F. J

., "Geology and Ground Water Characteristics of the Hanford Rese rvation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission," Professional Paper # 717, USGS., Washington, 1972.

2.4-32 Cole, C. R., and Reisenauer, A. E., "Variable Thickness Transient Model Assumptions and Boundary Conditions

," Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August 1974.

2.4-33 Environmental Monito ring Report on the Status of Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Site, January- December 1975, BNWL-2034, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Ri chland, WA, January 1977.

2.4-34 Bramson, O. P. E., and Corley, J. P., "Hanford Environmental Surveillance Routine Program," Master Schedule -C Y 1973, BNWL-B-234, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, December 1972.

2.4-35 Newcomb, R. C., "S ome Preliminary Notes on Ground Water in the Columbia Basalt," Northwest Sciences , Vol. 33, 1, 1959, pp. 1-18.

2.4-36 LaSala, A. M., Jr., Doty, G. C., and Pearson, F. S., "A Preliminary Evaluation of Regional Gr ound Water Flow in Sout h-Central Washington,"

USGS Open File Report, January 1973.

2.4-37 Parker, G. G., and Pi per, A. M., "Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the Richland Area, WA, Relevant to Disposal of Waste at the Hanford -Directed Operations of the Atomic Energy Commission," Interior Report 1, USGS Report to Atomic Energy Commission , 101 pages, 5 Illus., 1949.

2.4-38 Kipp, K. L., and Mudd, R. D., "S elected Water Table C ontour Maps for the Well Hydrographs and Hanford Re servation, 1944-1 973," BNWL-1797, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.

2.4-39 Serne, R. J., Routs on, R. C., and Cochran, D.

A., "Experimental Methods for Obtaining PERCOL Model I nput and Verification Data," BNWL-1721, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973, p. 24.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 57 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2003 2.4-34 2.4-40 Rouston, R. C., a nd Serne, R. J., "Experimental Support Studies for the PERCOL and Transport M odels," BNWL-1719, Battel le Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1972, pp. 37, B-1, and B-2.

2.4-41 Carslaw, H. S., and Jaeger, J. C., Conduction of Heat in Solids , Oxford University Press, London, England, 1959.

2.4-42 Codell, R. B., and Schreiher, D. L., "NRC Models for Evaluating the Transport of Radionuclides in Groundwater," Proceedings of the Symposium on

Management of Low Level Radioact ive Waste, Pergamon Press, 1979, pp. 1193-1212.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.4-35 Table 2.4-1 Major Columbia River Basin Dams Location Dams River River Miles from Site Usable Storage 10 3 ac-ft Upstream Mica Columbia (Can) 666 12,000 Duncan Duncan 1,400 Arrow Columbia (Can) 429 7,090 Libby Kootenai 642 5,000 Hungry Ho r s e South Fork Flathead 3,160 Kerr Clark Fork 1,219 Albeni Falls Pend Oreille 483 1,153 Grand Cou l ee Columbia 245 5,200 Chief Joseph Columbia 193 -- Wells Columbia 164 117 Chelan Chelan 152 677 Rocky Reach Columbia 122 120 Rock Island Columbia 101 -- Wanapum Columbia 64 38 9 a Priest Rapids Columbia 45 17 0 a Downstream McNary Columbia 60 John Day Columbia 136 The Dalles Columbia 160 Bonneville Columbia 206 a Storage not availabl e for flood regulation.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.4-36 Table 2.4-2 Columbia River Tempe r atures N ear Columbia Generating Station MONT H L Y AVERA G E W A TER T E MP E RATU R E, IN C, AT RICHLAND, W A Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avera g e 1965 6.1 5.4 6.3 9.1 11.0 14.2 17.3 19.8 18.5 16.4 12.6 8.4 12.1 1966 6.9 6.2 6.8 10.3 12.1 13.5 16.2 18.8 19.4 15.6 12.6 9.5 12.2 1967 7.4 7.0 6.6 8.8 12.0 13.9 17.0 20.2 19.4 16.1 12.0 7.8 12.4 1968 5.7 5.0 6.0 8.8 12.8 14.3 17.0 18.7 18.3 15.0 11.4 7.4 11.7 1969 2.7 1.9 4.3 8.0 11.4 15.3 17.9 19.3 18.6 15.2 11.7 7.0 11.1 1970 5.3 4.9 5.7 7.9 11.7 15.4 19.0 19.9 17.5 14.9 10.6 5.9 11.6 1971 4.2 3.4 3.8 7.0 11.1 12.9 16.4 19.5 17.8 15.0 10.7 6.2 10.7 1972 3.3 2.2 3.7 7.0 11.0 13.3 15.5 18.1 16.9 14.0 10.5 6.1 10.1 1973 3.2 3.0 4.7 7.8 12.9 15.6 18.3 19.6 18.3 15.0 9.9 7.6 11.3 1974 3.2 3.2 5.2 8.2 11.3 13.7 17.4 19.4 18.8 15.4 11.5 7.9 11.3 Average 1965-1974 4.7 4.2 5.3 8.3 11.7 14.2 17.2 19.3 18.4 15.3 11.4 7.4 11.4 Minimum Daily 0.2 0.7 2.4 5.1 8.6 11.2 14.2 17.3 14.6 11.1 7.7 2.4 -- Maximum Daily 8.3 8.3 8.6 12.8 15.0 17.7 20.4 21.5 21.1 18.5 15.9 11.3 -- Recor d s since June 1964.

MONT H L Y AVERA G E W A TER T E MP E RATU R E, IN C, AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA 1961 5.4 4.7 4.7 7.4 10.4 13.7 17.3 18.9 17.8 14.9 10.4 6.6 11.0 1962 4.1 3.6 3.6 6.5 10.0 13.7 16.1 17.4 17.1 14.8 11.9 8.9 10.6 1963 5.3 3.8 4.6 6.5 10.4 14.0 16.6 18.4 18.3 16.3 11.9 7.7 11.2 1964 5.5 4.6 4.7 7.2 9.7 12.8 15.3 17.1 16.3 14.6 10.8 6.3 10.4 1965 4.4 3.3 4.1 6.6 10.0 13.3 16.1 18.4 17.3 15.3 11.9 7.8 10.7 1966 4.8 4.1 4.5 7.8 10.6 12.4 15.3 17.5 17.5 14.6 11.6 8.4 10.8 1967 5.9 5.7 5.0 6.8 10.1 13.3 16.1 18.5 18.2 15.4 11.3 7.2 11.1 1968 4.6 3.3 4.6 7.1 11.1 13.4 16.1 17.5 17.2 14.2 10.9 6.8 10.6 1969 2.4 1.5 3.4 7.2 10.8 14.6 17.1 18.2 17.7 14.8 11.5 7.6 10.6 1970 4.3 4.1 4.8 6.8 10.9 14.8 18.0 19.2 17.5 15.2 10.6 6.2 11.0 1971 4.0 3.5 3.6 6.6 10.7 12.6 15.3 18.4 17.2 15.2 11.3 6.8 10.4 1972 3.6 1.9 4.0 7.2 10.6 12.9 15.2 17.3 16.8 15.4 11.3 7.3 10.3 1973 2.3 2.9 4.8 7.7 12.5 15.4 17.6 18.8 17.8 15.2 10.3 7.7 11.1 1974 4.0 3.0 4.9 7.7 10.8 13.6 17.2 18.7 18.4 15.5 11.8 8.6 11.2 Average 1965-1974 4.0 3.3 4.4 7.2 10.8 13.6 16.4 18.3 17.6 15.1 11.3 7.4 10.8 Minimum Daily 0.3 0.3 2.2 4.3 7.5 10.6 13.1 16.6 15.3 12.2 7.7 2.3 -- Maximum Daily 7.6 6.2 6.9 10.1 14.6 17.1 19.3 20.2 20.0 18.7 14.4 10.5 -- Records since August 1960. Recorded values adjusted by computer-simulation to compensate for measurement errors and missing data.

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 55 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT May 2001 LDC N-0 0-0 0 0 2.4-37 Table 2.4-3 Downstream Surface Water Use r s Location of Diversion Approximate Miles Quantity Type Name Township Range Section Downstream (cfs) Use a Energy N o rt hwest 11 28 2 -- 90 IN Peter Kewit and Sons 11 28 2 -- 1 I L. L. Bailey 11 28 24 4 2 I H. D. Loyd 11 28 24 4 0.99 D,I Central Premix Concrete Company 11 28 27 4 2 IN Battelle Memorial Institute 10 28 14 8 4.4 I University of Washington 10 28 23 9 1.75 I City of Richland 10 28 24 9 0.67 D City of Richland 10 28 25 12 31 D City of Richland 10 28 25 12 23.25 D City of Richland 10 28 25 12 31 D City of Richland 10 28 35 12 93 D E. C. Watts 9 28 1 13 0.31 D,I H. S. Petty 9 28 1 13 0.48 I N. H. and M. E. Ketchersid 9 28 1 13 1.66 I G. C. Walkley 9 28 1 13 2.32 I R. T. Justesen, et al. 9 28 12 15 2.54 I Central Premix Concrete Company 9 28 12 15 1.10 IN City of Richland 9 28 13 17 2.0 I Benton County 9 29 28 19 1.0 I City of Kennewick 9 30 31 23 55.7 D City of Pasco 9 30 31 23 35.0 D F. J. Henckel 8 30 14 27 0.015 I Allied Chemical 8 30 14 27 3.55 IN Chevron Chemical 8 30 23 28 3.77 IN Chevron Chemical 8 30 23 28 40 IN Phillips Pacific Chemical Company 8 30 24 28 82 IN Phillips Pacific Chemical Company 8 30 24 28 20 IN

Boise Cascade Corporation 7 31 10 34 24.5 IN L. D. Hoyte, et al. 7 31 14 35 179.8 I D. Howe 7 31 23 36 6.4 I Crawford and Sons 6 30 27 47 32.8 I Barbarosa Farms 6 30 27 47 20 I Crawford and Sons 6 30 27 47 7.6 I Rainier National Bank 6 30 27 47 9.4 I Anderson and Coffin 5 29 5 49 242 I Horse Heaven Farms 5 29 6 50 82 I Horse Heaven Farms 5 29 6 50 550 I Horse Heaven Farms 5 29 6 50 290 I Anderson and Coffin 5 29 6 50 242 I a D - Domestic or municipal uses I - Irrigation and other agricultural uses IN - Industrial Includes only those water rights for which a permit or certificate has been issued C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.4-38 Table 2.4-4 Mean Disc h a rges in C F S of Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam, Modified to 1970 Condi t i ons Water Year Oct. N o v. Dec. J a n. F e b. Mar. Apr. May J une July Au g. Sept. Annual 19 2 8 22 4 000 10 9 900 90 9 00 19 2 9 82 3 00 78 4 00 10 1 100 10 3 000 10 8 000 72 6 00 85 2 00 62 0 00 71 3 00 87 6 00 97 0 00 94 3 00 86 9 00 19 3 0 87 9 00 89 8 00 10 2 700 93 5 00 90 7 00 83 1 00 72 5 00 81 7 00 90 2 00 98 8 00 97 6 00 92 7 00 90 1 00 19 3 1 86 8 00 89 6 00 10 0 000 82 2 00 90 8 00 88 4 00 74 5 00 81 7 00 10 4 000 10 2 200 99 4 00 85 8 00 90 4 00 19 3 2 87 4 00 88 7 00 10 2 000 95 0 00 10 9 200 77 8 00 90 7 00 15 7 500 15 6 700 74 6 00 97 8 00 90 6 00 10 2 300 19 3 3 89 6 00 69 7 00 10 2 700 12 8 800 16 7 100 97 9 00 11 8 900 18 5 900 19 6 600 18 0 300 12 1 900 10 0 200 13 0 000 19 3 4 10 0 600 10 4 200 12 8 000 13 9 600 20 3 400 19 6 700 24 3 100 22 1 200 16 8 800 10 4 500 10 0 000 10 1 000 15 0 900 19 3 5 82 0 00 72 4 00 10 9 200 13 2 100 13 2 000 11 1 300 11 7 600 14 7 500 15 6 900 13 1 100 99 3 00 96 9 00 11 5 700 19 3 6 90 2 00 86 2 00 10 7 900 11 9 400 79 8 00 80 4 00 81 5 00 16 0 500 12 3 300 83 4 00 93 2 00 89 4 00 99 6 00 19 3 7 87 6 00 87 5 00 10 5 400 96 6 00 10 0 600 84 4 00 63 5 00 70 4 00 76 9 00 87 8 00 10 2 500 91 5 00 87 9 00 19 3 8 89 3 00 83 1 00 88 7 00 11 1 000 12 4 100 86 8 00 11 0 700 14 2 400 14 6 800 15 4 100 90 4 00 89 2 00 10 9 700 19 3 9 83 4 00 77 1 00 91 7 00 12 7 200 90 4 00 83 0 00 10 8 500 10 0 000 11 2 400 95 5 00 96 9 00 90 8 00 96 4 00 19 4 0 85 8 00 85 4 00 90 5 00 13 3 200 98 0 00 89 2 00 11 0 700 89 7 00 10 1 700 94 1 00 96 0 00 91 6 00 97 2 00 19 4 1 84 3 00 79 6 00 92 5 00 99 4 00 92 2 00 87 9 00 13 7 400 76 9 00 73 2 00 84 0 00 91 5 00 88 7 00 90 6 00 19 4 2 96 0 00 82 7 00 91 4 00 11 4 100 11 9 000 84 6 00 11 5 900 10 5 300 14 8 400 10 1 400 10 2 000 88 3 00 10 4 100 19 4 3 87 9 00 65 8 00 86 8 00 10 5 600 15 0 600 11 6 000 13 2 400 20 2 600 13 4 300 14 7 700 10 1 300 88 9 00 11 8 300 19 4 4 81 3 00 77 2 00 96 8 00 99 3 00 11 0 600 78 7 00 88 2 00 88 0 00 69 1 00 81 2 00 94 6 00 84 4 00 87 4 00 19 4 5 90 1 00 90 9 00 10 3 600 88 5 00 94 0 00 86 5 00 77 8 00 11 2 800 67 8 00 88 8 00 99 3 00 87 4 00 90 6 00 19 4 6 86 2 00 85 7 00 92 5 00 95 6 00 11 7 700 90 8 00 11 2 200 17 8 100 17 0 900 13 4 500 94 4 00 91 1 00 11 2 500 19 4 7 79 6 00 81 3 00 93 1 00 11 6 000 13 7 800 13 5 200 15 5 900 18 4 400 16 3 400 13 6 300 89 9 00 85 5 00 12 1 500 19 4 8 94 7 00 96 0 00 11 3 900 11 3 200 20 2 800 16 6 700 13 7 700 19 3 400 25 7 600 19 4 700 12 2 900 10 1 900 14 9 600 19 4 9 88 0 00 83 6 00 97 7 00 12 6 000 11 4 000 80 0 00 12 3 000 16 6 400 18 1 600 82 7 00 92 2 00 87 8 00 11 0 200 19 5 0 79 0 00 69 5 00 10 6 800 12 3 300 15 5 200 14 5 400 13 6 400 19 7 500 20 0 200 21 1 900 11 4 800 96 2 00 13 6 400 19 5 1 91 8 00 87 9 00 10 2 600 11 5 400 22 3 400 18 6 200 19 5 600 18 8 800 17 1 300 17 4 300 11 0 300 91 7 00 14 4 900 19 5 2 94 2 00 98 8 00 11 2 200 12 6 500 15 5 200 11 3 300 13 4 600 17 2 400 13 5 800 14 5 100 88 7 00 85 9 00 12 1 900 19 5 3 85 5 00 83 9 00 10 3 900 95 5 00 12 4 800 87 8 00 98 7 00 17 4 000 16 8 300 14 1 400 99 0 00 89 2 00 11 2 700 19 5 4 83 6 00 89 8 00 11 0 300 12 2 100 15 3 600 13 5 200 12 4 200 19 1 200 22 4 900 22 8 400 16 3 600 11 4 400 14 5 100 19 5 5 98 7 00 10 3 400 12 6 600 13 2 400 14 3 900 10 2 700 11 0 500 10 4 300 18 1 800 19 3 300 11 1 900 91 0 00 12 5 000 19 5 6 95 7 00 94 5 00 97 0 00 10 8 100 20 6 500 20 0 600 17 3 500 24 5 800 21 2 600 20 0 400 10 3 600 90 7 00 15 2 400 19 5 7 87 4 00 82 9 00 10 9 400 13 2 100 14 5 100 10 1 200 11 3 600 18 2 700 17 6 500 12 0 900 89 0 00 86 9 00 11 9 000 19 5 8 77 5 00 75 2 00 83 3 00 12 0 200 12 3 700 10 7 300 12 5 000 17 2 800 17 2 900 Mean 87800 84700 101700 113200 132100 108600 119000 147900 147200 132800 102400 91800 114100

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.4-39 Table 2.4-5 Dependable Yield, C o l u mbia River Below

Priest Rapids Dam, Washington

Consecutive Years of Lowest Mean Flow Inclusive Years Lowest Mean Flow (cfs) Percent of 1929-1958 Mean 1 1937 86,600 75.9 2 1930-31 89,900 78.8 3 1929-31 92,900 81.4 4 1929-32 95,800 84.0 5 1937-41 96,400 84.5 6 1937-42 97,300 85.3 7 1936-42 98,400 86.2 8 1937-44 99,000 86.8 9 1937-45 97,900 85.8 10 1936-45 98,600 86.4 11 1929-58 114,100 100.0

C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 53 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT November 1998 2.4-40 Table 2.4-6 Major Geologic Units in the Hanford Region and Their Water-Bearing Properties System Series Geologic Unit Material Water-Bearing Properties Fluviatile and glaciofluviatile sediments and the Touchet

formation

(0-200 ft thick)

Sands and gravels occurring chiefly as glacial

outwash. Unconsolidated, tending toward coarseness and angularity of grains, essentially free of fines. Where below the water table, such deposits have

very high permeability and are capable of storing vast amounts of water.

Highest permeability value determined was

12,000 ft/day.

Pleistocene Palouse soil Wind deposited silt. Occurs everywhere above the water table. Quaternary Ringold formation

(200-1200 ft thick) Well-bedded lacustrine silts and sands and local beds of clay and gravel.

Poorly sorted, locally

semi-consolidated or cemented. Generally

divided into the lower

"blue clay" portion which contains considerable sand

and gravel, the middle conglomerate portion, and the upper silts and fine

sand portion. Has relatively low

permeability; values range from 1 to 200 ft/day. Storage capacity correspondingly

low. In very minor part, a few beds of gravel and sand are sufficiently

clean that permeability is

moderately large; on the other hand, some beds of silty clay or clay are essentially impermeable.

Miocene and Pliocene Columbia River basalt series (10,000 ft thick) Basaltic lavas with interbedded sedimentary rocks, considerably

deformed. Underlie the unconsolidated sediments. Rocks are generally dense except for numerous shrink-age cracks, interflow scoria

zones, and interbedded

sediments. Permeability of rocks is small (e.g.,

0.002 to 9 ft/day) but transmissivity of a thick

section may be

considerable (70 to

700 ft 2/day)

Amendment 55 May 2001Hydrographic Map 990306.30 2.4-1 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Yakima River Richland Pasco KennewickWalla Walla River Snake River N. Richland 20 mi.15 mi.10 mi.5 mi.2 mi.Plant Site Columbia River Coulee Creek Rattlesnake Creek Crab Creek Power Columbia River Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report

Discharge and Temperature of the Columbia River at Priest Rapids 990306.06 2.4-4 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Temperature ( C)Q (kcfs)Record T Max 19.9 (1963)1020 Jan1020 Feb1020 Mar1020 Apr1020 May1020 June1020 July1020 Aug1020 Sept1020 Oct1020 Nov1020 Dec 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0/18 100 0/18 200 400 500 600 700 800(E)Estimated from high water marks at Wenatchee(I)Based on USGS-published weekly averages at Priest Rapids for the period 1953 - 67(2)USGS-Published daily averages at Priest Rapids.(3)Daily averages for the USGS Gaging Station at Priest Rapids.(4)Based on 15-day moving averages for the 1960- 68 period of record at Priest Rapids.

1963(3)1969 and Record

T Min 0.0 Normal (I) 1969 (2)1969 T Max 19.7 1969 Q Max 320 Normal (4)1956 Q Max 5.54 1948 Q Max 693 Record Q Max 740 9 Discharge (Q) and temperature (T) of the Columbia River at

Priest Rapids during 1969 with miscellaneous data for prior

years (p)(p) Unless otherwise specified, pre-1960 data are for Trinidad. A gaging station about 23 miles downstream from Wenatchee Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Columbia Rive r Water Surface ProfilesRiver Miles 323 to 358 990306.07 2.4-5 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.1,360,000 CFS 725,000 CFS 300,000 CFS 36,000 CFS 725,000 CFS 300,000 CFS 36,000 CFS 1,360,000 CFS 500 480 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 358Elevation Above MSL River Miles 355 350 345 340 330 325 335 328Elevation Above MSL 7,200,000 CFS 5,969,000 CFS 4,768,000 CFS Ground El. at Plant Site Ground El. atMake-up Water Pumphouse 6,800,000 CFS 5,646,000 CFS 4,512,000 CFS 2,200,000 CFSMouth of Yakima River Mouth of Snake River Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Figure Not Available For Public Viewing Figure Not Available For Public Viewing Figure Not Available For Public Viewing Figure Not Available For Public Viewing Figure Not Available For Public Viewing Amendment 55 May 2001PMF Hydrograph Due to Thunderstorm PMP 990306.31 2.4-7 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Time (Hours)24681012141618 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Probable Maximum Flood Hydrograph @ X-sec 1 Peak Flow = 21,400 cfs Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report

Amendment 57December 2003Probable Maximum Precipitation ChannelCross Sections 990306.08 2.4-9 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.1 436 432 428 424 436 432 428 424 420 436 432 428 424 420 416 436 432 428 424 420 416 436 432 428 424 420 416 436 432 428 424 420 416 412 408 436 432 428 424 420 416 412 408 436 432 428 424 420 416 412 408 436 432 428 424 420 416 436 432 428 424 420 416 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 436 432 428 424 420 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2 4 3 5 9 8 7 6 1011 Distance (feet)

Overbank areas Elevation (feet MSL)

Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report LDCN-02-000 Amendment 55 May 2001Water Surface Profile 990306.32 2.4-10 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 1011 X-Sec Cross Section Numbers Elevation (Feet MSL)

Distance (1000 Feet)024681012141618202224262830 404 406 408 410 412 414 416 418 420 422 424 426 428 430 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001 Effective Fetch Diagram 990306.332.4-11 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Scale - 1" = 2000' Outline of Maximum Stillwater Pond East Spray Pond Central Radial 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Computed Long-Term Temperature Trends on theColumbia River at Rock Island Dam (1938 - 1962) 990306.34 2.4-12 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.70 60 50 40 32 Upper Extreme Mean Lower ExtremeCalender Years River Temperature, °F 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001River Elevation at Low Flows - River Mile 352 990306.35 2.4-13 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.360 350 340 330 Flow KCFS Elevation - ft above MSL 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 10 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Duration Curves Columbia River, Priest Rapids Dam 990306.36 2.4-14 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.300 200 100 0Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded Discharge, Thousand Cubic Feet per Second 02030405060708090100 10 Period: 1929 - 1958 1970 Conditions Annual Monthly Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Amendment 55 May 2001Frequency Curves of High and Low Flows for theColumbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam 990306.37 2.4-15 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Period 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 12 Month 6 Month 3 Month 1 Month Period of record 1929 - 1958 1970 Conditions High Flows 300 200 100 50 Low FlowsRecurrence Interval, Years Mean Discharge, 1000 cfs 1.11.5235 10203050mean 115,000 cfs 12 months Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Figure Not Available For Public Viewing

Amendment 57December 2003Hanford Reservation Water Table Map (December 1975)010126.53 2.4-18 Figure Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Yakima River Columbia RiverSource:Atlantic Richfield Hanford CompanyReport ARH -ST-137 Dated Nov. 1976 Columbia River Hanford Reservation Gable Mountain Pond 434(132)B Pond 574(172)West Lake 403(123)200 W 200 E U Pond 656(200)RichlandWater Table Contours in Feet and (Meters)

above Mean Sea LevelPonds with Water Surface in Feet and (Meters)

above Mean Sea Level Kilometers 10 0 5 Miles 1005 LEGEND: 470(143)350 (107)360(110)370(113)380(116)390(119)400 (122)410 (125)420 (128)430 (131)440(114)490 (149)510 (155)500 (152)0 480 (146)460 (140)450 (137)LDCN-02-000 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report

Rev.FigureDraw. No.Form No. 960690 LDCN-06-000 Amendment 59December 2007 020361.09 2.4-22Nitrate (NO3) Concentrations (December 1976)

Columbia Generating Station Final Safety Analysis Report

Well Hydrographs 990306.09 2.4-27.1 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.50 60 70 370 360 380 390Water Elevation (FT-MSL) 50 60 70 50 60 70Calender YearWell No. 699-23 Casing Elev = 477.14Well No. 699-17-5

Casing Elev = 433.19Well No. 699-9-E2

Casing Elev = 418.48 50 60 70 360 350 370Water Elevation (FT-MSL) 50 60 70 50 60 70 50 60 70Calender YearWell No. 699-20-EST Casing Elev = 467.69Well No. 699-14E6T

Casing Elev = 458.38Well No. 699-20-E12

Casing Elev = 437.25Well No. 699-10-E12

Casing Elev = 430.86 Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Well Hydrographs 990306.39 2.4-27.2 Figure Amendment 55 May 2001 Form No. 960690Draw. No.Rev.Water Elevation, Ft-MSL 385 384 383 382 381 380Well Number 699-20-E12-P 379 62Calender YearCalender YearCalender Year657075Well Number 699-10-E12-P 391 390 389 388 387 386657075Well Number 699-14-E6P6668707274 389 388 387 386Water Elevation, Ft-MSL Casing Elevation 437.45 Ft-MSL646668707274Well Number 699-20-E5-P Casing Elevation 467.04 Ft-MSLCasing Elev.

458.44 Ft-MSLCasing Elev.

431.20 Ft-MSL Columbia Generating StationFinal Safety Analysis Report Figure Not Available For Public Viewing C OLUMBIA G ENERATING S TATION Amendment 58 F INAL S AFETY A NALYSIS R EPORT December 2005 LDCN-05-050 2.5-1 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The information discussing the geology, seismol ogy, and geotechnical engineering is contained in a technical memorandum, TM-2143 , "Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering Report." This report is incorporated by reference into the FSAR and as su ch is subject to the same controls as the FSAR.